Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
`harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
`MICHAEL A. COLUMBO (SBN: 271283)*
`mcolumbo@dhillonlaw.com
`JEREMIAH D. GRAHAM (SBN: 313206)
`jgraham@dhillonlaw.com
`ANTHONY J. FUSARO, JR. (SBN: 345017)*
`afusaro@dhillonlaw.com
`DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
`177 Post Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 433-1700
`Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
`Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Republican National Committee
`
`THOMAS R. MCCARTHY**
`tom@consovoymccarthy.com
`THOMAS S. VASELIOU**
`tvaseliou@consovoymccarthy.com
`CONOR D. WOODFIN**
`conor@consovoymccarthy.com
`CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
`1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22209
`(703) 243-9423
`Counsel for Plaintiff Republican National Committee
`
`*Admission to the Eastern District forthcoming
`**Admission Pro Hac Vice forthcoming
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
`COMMITTEE,
`
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`Case Number:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
`RELIEF, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND
`DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No. _____________
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about a market-dominant communications firm unlawfully discriminating
`
`against the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) by throttling its email messages because of the
`
`RNC’s political affiliation and views. Email is an indispensable means of communication to send
`
`important information and to build communities. The RNC also relies on this crucial conduit as it
`
`engages in its core mission of conducting political activity in support of the Republican Party. This
`
`includes communicating political messaging and important Get-Out-The-Vote information to
`
`supporters, as well as maintaining relationships with individuals who have and will continue to
`
`financially support the RNC, so that the RNC can fund its political activities. To effectively reach
`
`and grow its community, the RNC takes great pains to ensure that every email it sends is to someone
`
`who requested it.
`
`2.
`
`Nevertheless, Google has relegated millions of RNC emails en masse to potential
`
`donors’ and supporters’ spam folders during pivotal points in election fundraising and community
`
`building. The timing of Google’s most egregious filtering is particularly damning. For most of each
`
`month, nearly all of the RNC’s emails make it into users’ inboxes. At approximately the same time
`
`at the end of each month, Google sends to spam nearly all of the RNC’s emails. Critically, and
`
`suspiciously, this end of the month period is historically when the RNC’s fundraising is most
`
`successful. It doesn’t matter whether the email is about donating, voting, or community outreach.
`
`And it doesn’t matter whether the emails are sent to people who requested them. This discrimination
`
`has been ongoing for about ten months—despite the RNC’s best efforts to work with Google.
`
`3.
`
`Throughout 2022, the RNC has engaged with Google month after month to obtain an
`
`explanation and a solution. But every explanation has been refuted and every solution has failed.
`
`Google continues to suppress the RNC’s emails, and now Google has fallen silent, refusing to discuss
`
`the issue further. The only reasonable inference is that Google is intentionally sending critical RNC
`
`emails to the spam folder because it’s the RNC sending them. Google’s discrimination has already
`
`caused the RNC to lose valuable revenue in California and the rest of the country, and Google’s
`
`conduct will continue to cost the RNC further revenue in the coming weeks as the 2022 midterm
`
`election looms, and beyond. Perhaps worse, Google’s conduct has caused the RNC to lose its ability
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`to communicate voting information and other political messaging to its supporters during the critical
`
`midterm elections. This harm is irreparable and must be stopped.
`
`4.
`
`Unfortunately, this is not the first time a communications company has discriminated
`
`against people based on their political views and affiliation, but fortunately this means there are laws
`
`ready to combat this harm. In the 1800s, a pivotal form of communication was the telegraph and
`
`Western Union had a dominate market share across the country. By the late 1800s, “legislators grew
`
`‘concern[ed] about the possibility that the private entities that controlled this amazing new technology
`
`would use that power to manipulate the flow of information to the public when doing so served their
`
`economic or political self-interest.’” NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439, 470 (5th Cir. 2022)
`
`10
`
`(opinion of Oldham, J.) (quoting Genevieve Lakier, The Non-First Amendment Law of Freedom of
`
`11
`
`Speech, 134 Harv. L. Rev. 2299, 2321 (2021)).
`
`12
`
`5.
`
`“These fears proved well-founded.” NetChoice, 49 F.4th at 470. Even though Western
`
`13
`
`Union offered to serve any member of the public, it repeatedly discriminated against messages based
`
`14
`
`on the message’s political views or on the person’s political affiliation. It, for example, “discriminated
`
`15
`
`against certain political speech, like strike-related telegraphs.” Id.; see also Lakier, supra, at 2322. It
`
`16
`
`was also “widely believed that Western Union … ‘influenc[ed] the reporting of political elections in
`
`17
`
`an effort to promote the election of candidates their directors favored.’” NetChoice, 49 F.4th at 470
`
`18
`
`(quoting Lakier, supra, at 2322); see also The Blaine Men Bluffing, N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 1884, at 5.
`
`19
`
`And it was not the only time Western Union was accused of discriminating based on political views
`
`20
`
`or affiliation: “Similar accusations were made about Western Union’s role in the presidential contest[]
`
`21
`
`eight years earlier.” Lakier, supra, at 2322 n.114 (citing David Hochfelder, The Telegraph in
`
`22
`
`America, 1832-1920, at 176 (2013)).
`
`23
`
`6.
`
`In response to these discriminatory practices, states across the country enacted
`
`24
`
`nondiscrimination laws that prohibited businesses from “manipulating the flow of information to the
`
`25
`
`public.” Lakier, supra, at 2322; see also NetChoice, 49 F.4th at 471. One such state was California.
`
`26
`
`It passed laws requiring “common carriers” to timely transmit messages in a nondiscriminatory
`
`27
`
`manner. See Cal. Civil Code §2168 et seq.
`
`28
`
`
`
`7.
`
`States took other measures to ban businesses from discriminating against the public.
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`States, for example, passed civil rights acts (also called public-accommodation provisions) barring
`
`businesses from discriminating based on certain classes, including political affiliation and beliefs.
`
`See, e.g., Eugene Volokh, Bans on Political Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation and
`
`Housing, 15 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 490 (2022). California again is one such state. See Cal. Civ. Code
`
`§§51, 51.5; see also, e.g., Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 640 P.2d 115, 117 (Cal. 1982) (“political
`
`affiliation”); In re Cox, 474 P.2d 992, 1000 (Cal. 1970) (“members of the John Birch Society, or who
`
`belong to the American Civil Liberties Union”).
`
`8.
`
`Despite these efforts by states (and the federal government), history has regrettably
`
`repeated itself. Once again, a dominant communications company is discriminating based on political
`
`10
`
`affiliation and unlawfully controlling the flow of information to the public. At bottom, Google’s email
`
`11
`
`service is a modern-day Western Union: Google offers to carry messages in the form of electronic
`
`12
`
`mail. Google allows any adult to make a Gmail account and transmit and receive communications
`
`13
`
`after agreeing to the same boilerplate terms of service. Google possesses a significant market share
`
`14
`
`of the email industry with at least 53% of Americans having Gmail accounts. Google’s email service
`
`15
`
`is an indispensable form of communication for the public to access information and to achieve
`
`16
`
`vocational success. And Americans expect that when they send an email to someone who has
`
`17
`
`requested it, the email will be reasonably sent and delivered in the recipient’s inbox.
`
`18
`
`9.
`
`Although Google’s tools for discriminating might be more sophisticated than Western
`
`19
`
`Union’s, that doesn’t make it any less of a business in violation of the longstanding nondiscrimination
`
`20
`
`obligations states like California have enacted. Indeed, nondiscrimination provisions have repeatedly
`
`21
`
`been applied to technology more sophisticated than the telegraph. They’ve applied to the telephone.
`
`22
`
`See, e.g., Goldin v. Pub. Utilities Comm’n, 592 P.2d 289, 304 (Cal. 1979). They’ve applied to internet
`
`23
`
`service providers. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code §3101 et seq.; ACA Connects v. Bonta, 24 F.4th 1233 (9th
`
`24
`
`Cir. 2022) (detailing the history of net-neutrality rules). And they’ve applied to social media and other
`
`25
`
`websites. See, e.g., NetChoice, 49 F.4th at 473-80, 493-94 (social media like Twitter, Facebook,
`
`26
`
`YouTube); Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 (Ct. App. 2018) (dating application);
`
`27
`
`White v. Square, Inc., 446 P.3d 276 (Cal. 2019) (finance website and application); cf. State v. Google
`
`28
`
`LLC, No. 21-CV-H-06-0274, 2022 WL 1818648 (Ohio Com. Pl. May 24, 2022) (Google’s search
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`4
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`engine). Email is not “the point where the underlying technology is … so complicated that the
`
`government may no longer regulate it to prevent invidious discrimination.” NetChoice, 49 F.4th at
`
`479.
`
`10.
`
`The court should thus make clear that California’s nondiscrimination provisions apply
`
`to Google’s Gmail. Whether Google is categorized as a common carrier, public accommodation, or
`
`a business providing a service, California law prohibits Google’s spam filtration of RNC emails based
`
`on political affiliation and views. To conclude otherwise would mean that “email providers, mobile
`
`phone companies, and banks could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone
`
`call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business.” Id. at 445.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11.
`
`It is no answer to say, as Google surely will, that its spam filtering is not intentional.
`
`11
`
`The most reasonable inference is that it is intentional. Regardless, Google’s conduct is at the very
`
`12
`
`least negligent and unreasonable. And California law forbids that too. Common carrier law doesn’t
`
`13
`
`require intentional discrimination. Neither do common law claims like negligent interference with
`
`14
`
`prospective relations. Neither does California’s unfair practices law. In the end, Google has violated
`
`15
`
`the law, cost the RNC numerous donations and substantial revenue, and irreparably injured the RNC’s
`
`16
`
`relationship with its community.
`
`17
`
`12.
`
`The RNC therefore seeks an order of this court declaring unlawful and enjoining
`
`18
`
`Google’s diversion of the RNC’s communications to its supporters that use Google’s Gmail service,
`
`19
`
`and ordering all other appropriate remedies authorized by law, including compensatory, statutory,
`
`20
`
`and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`13. Plaintiff RNC is the national committee of the Republican Party as defined by 52
`
`PARTIES
`
`23
`
`U.S.C. §30101(14). The RNC is incorporated in Washington D.C. and has its principal place of
`
`24
`
`business there. The RNC manages the business of the Republican Party throughout the United States
`
`25
`
`at the national level, including by: developing and promoting the party’s national platform; supporting
`
`26
`
`Republican candidates for public office at all levels of government; developing and implementing
`
`27
`
`electoral strategies; educating, assisting, and mobilizing voters; raising funds to support the party’s
`
`28
`
`operations and candidates; and recognizing and coordinating with the various territorial and state-
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`5
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`level party organizations and their officers who serve as RNC members. From January 1, 2021,
`
`through September 30, 2022, the RNC has raised approximately $296 million. The RNC uses the
`
`funds provided by its supporters to engage in interstate commerce by purchasing services in numerous
`
`states to fulfill its mission. The RNC’s total disbursements in the same period were approximately
`
`$349 million.
`
`14. Defendant Google is a Delaware corporation, whose principal place of business is at
`
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, County of Santa Clara, State of California. As the
`
`leading internet search engine provider, Google conducts business in all 50 States. Google also
`
`provides a variety of other internet-based products, including Gmail, the leading email service
`
`provider used by 41.9% of Americans.1
`
`15.
`
`Google profits significantly from Gmail through advertising, among other
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`things. See https://about.google/intl/en_US/how-our-business-works/ (“Because
`
`of
`
`advertising,
`
`13
`
`we’re able to offer our products to users around the world free of charge....”); cf. NetChoice, 49 F.4th
`
`14
`
`at 476 (“[T]he Platforms, which earn almost all their revenue through advertising, are among the
`
`15
`
`world's most valuable corporations.”). As a general matter, Google does not charge a user monetary
`
`16
`
`fees to use Gmail. Any person can get a Gmail account if they meet the age requirement to create a
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Google Account and agree to Google’s terms of services.2
`
`16.
`
`In return for its service, Google collects key information from the user. In other words,
`
`19
`
`a user’s personal information is the compensation for Google’s Gmail services. Google then uses that
`
`20
`
`data or sells it to third parties to use. Google also sells to third parties the ability to post or send a
`
`21
`
`targeted, personalized advertisement in the user’s inbox. One example is called a “banner ad.”
`
`22
`
`Through a service called “Google Ads,” Google sells to third parties the ability to post a banner ad in
`
`23
`
`a user’s inbox (among other places), and thus, Google profits in part on the popularity of Gmail. See
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`1 Nestor Gilbert, Number of Active Gmail Users 2022/2023: Statistics, Demographics, & Usage, FinancesOnline (updated
`Jan. 14, 2022) https://financesonline.com/number-of-active-gmail-users/.
`
`2 See https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US (“If you meet these age requirements[,] you can create a Google
`Account for your convenience. Some services require that you have a Google Account in order to work—for example, to
`use Gmail, you need a Google Account so that you have a place to send and receive your email.”); cf. NetChoice, 49 F.4th
`at 474 (Platforms like Google have “represented a willingness to carry anyone on the same terms and conditions,” i.e.,
`without individualized bargaining.).
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`6
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`https://ads.google.com/home/campaigns/display-ads/ (“Display ads can help you promote your
`
`business when people are browsing online, watching YouTube videos, checking Gmail, or using
`
`mobile devices and apps. The Google Display Network reaches 90% of Internet users worldwide,
`
`across millions of websites, news pages, blogs, and Google sites like Gmail and YouTube.”
`
`(emphases added)). These banner ads generally appear at the top of the “Promotions” and “Social”
`
`tabs of a Gmail user’s inbox.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28
`
`U.S.C. §1367(a), and 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).
`
`18. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and 31 U.S.C. §3732(a).
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`I. Email is an indispensable means of communication for the RNC.
`
`A. The RNC uses email to fund campaigns and build a community, especially in
`
`California.
`
`19. The RNC purchases millions of dollars in goods and services each election cycle to pay
`
`for its operations, support the campaigns of numerous Republican candidates nationwide, advocate
`
`for laws and policies consistent with its members’ interests, and litigate on related issues. To get the
`
`funds to fulfill its purpose and pay for these activities, it is essential that the RNC cultivate and
`
`maintain relationships with and mobilize its supporters. Many RNC supporters repeatedly fund its
`
`efforts through election cycles, necessitating and creating an ongoing financial relationship
`
`maintained through communications about the RNC’s efforts and needs. The ability of the RNC to
`
`reach its supporters through email is indispensable to its basic operations. This is especially true in
`
`today’s digital world, where landlines and postal mail are rapidly fading in use. And for many RNC
`
`supporters, the means of communication through which the RNC can engage with them, and can
`
`solicit their support, is Gmail.
`
`20. This is true in California, specifically. California has the most registered Republicans.
`
`And in California, the RNC has eight offices and three community outreach centers: Half of the
`
`RNC’s offices and a third of its community centers are in the Eastern District of California. Like in
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`other states, the RNC has sent numerous emails to Gmail users in California who agreed to receive
`
`them. Like in other states, the RNC’s emails have been sent to spam. California has ranked first in
`
`donations and money raised in 2022.
`
`21. Since February 2022, the RNC has held approximately 349 events in the Eastern
`
`District of California. These events are critical to the RNC’s efforts to raise funds, engage voters, and
`
`support campaigns. The RNC relies on email to inform its supporters of these events. When the RNC
`
`sends emails regarding these events, it expects that those emails will reach their recipients’ inboxes.
`
`But Google at critical moments has sent those emails to the recipients’ spam folders, hindering the
`
`RNC’s communication with those supporters. Google’s actions have impeded RNC’s efforts to raise
`
`10
`
`funds, engage voters, and support campaigns in the Eastern District of California, resulting in severe
`
`11
`
`economic and reputational damage to the RNC.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`B. The RNC ensures that it sends emails only to those that request them and monitors
`
`whether the emails reach a recipient’s inbox rather than the spam folder.
`
`22. The RNC maintains a list of people who have requested to receive emails from the
`
`RNC. The emails the RNC sends via its campaigns.rnchq.com email domain are only sent to people
`
`on this list and thus everyone who receives an email from the RNC asked to receive the email. The
`
`RNC actively updates the list, so that anyone who no longer wants to receive emails (or a certain type
`
`of email) will no longer do so. If the RNC receives a request to no longer receive a particular type of
`
`email, it removes the person from receiving the type of emails they unsubscribed from in a reasonable
`
`amount of time. If the RNC receives a request to no longer receive any emails, then the person is
`
`removed from the email list and, within a reasonable amount of time, will no longer receive any
`
`emails. Thus, the emails sent to spam at issue here are solicited—the Gmail user asked the RNC to
`
`send him or her emails.
`
`23. How often a sender’s emails reach a user’s inbox is called the “inboxing rate.” The
`
`“inboxing rate” is a critical metric to diagnose and fix issues that cause emails to go to spam. And the
`
`RNC strives to keep its inboxing rate high.
`
`24. Google does not provide data on whether an email reaches a Gmail user’s inbox. So, to
`
`optimize email deliverability, the RNC contracts with a leading company in the field called Validity
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`to use its email-deliverability platform Everest. According to Validity, “Everest is the absolute
`
`pinnacle of email marketing” and is one of the few programs “that gives you full control of all critical
`
`stages of email marketing.” Together, the RNC can essentially monitor whether its emails reach a
`
`user’s inbox or is filtered into spam using an industry accepted method. At a general, simplified level,
`
`the RNC, with Everest, has created numerous email addresses used specifically to determine whether
`
`an email sent by the RNC reaches an inbox or is sent to spam. When the RNC sends an email, it
`
`generally sends the email to (1) a subset of its self-created email addresses and (2) a subset of people
`
`on its email list. Because the RNC has control over its self-created addresses, the RNC can collect
`
`data on an email’s performance. With the help of Everest, a statistical analysis is performed to assess
`
`10
`
`to estimate the inboxing rate of the email the RNC sent.
`
`11
`
`25. Thus, if Everest and the RNC calculate an inboxing rate of nearly 0%, it means that
`
`12
`
`Gmail hid nearly every campaign email sent by the RNC during the relevant period of time.
`
`13
`
`26. Here is an example of an RNC email sent to Californians who requested emails and
`
`14
`
`that Google sent almost completely to spam:
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`II. Google has unreasonably sent RNC emails to the spam folder during critical moments in
`
`election fundraising and community building.
`
`27. Google has repeatedly sent RNC emails to spam contrary to the spam folder’s purpose.
`
`As a service to its users, and to increase its own profits, Google intercepts certain messages intended
`
`for its users that comprise unsolicited and unwanted bulk-emailed messages and place them in a
`
`separate folder, called the spam folder. But the spam folder’s purpose is to conceal from users
`
`unrequested and unwanted messages from unknown senders. This obviously does not apply to the
`
`RNC’s emails to its supporters, who have requested to receive the emails. Yet Google sends these
`
`emails to spam anyway.
`
`28. And Google’s most egregious discrimination began in at least February 2022. That
`
`month, when the RNC began working on matters related to the 2022 mid-term election, the RNC
`
`detected that its Gmail “inboxing” rate suddenly dropped from rates consistently above 90% to nearly
`
`0% on certain days during the last week of each month. This inboxing rate of nearly 0% means that
`
`Gmail hid nearly every campaign email sent by the RNC from the Gmail users on whom the RNC
`
`financially relies. Significantly, Google’s most egregious spam filtering has repeatedly occurred
`
`towards the end of the month—the most effective and important period for these transactions between
`
`the RNC and its supporters.
`
`29. This has reoccurred every subsequent month of 2022. Google has provided a series of
`
`false explanations for its spam filtering.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30.
`
`For nearly a year, the RNC has engaged with Google, urging it to stop its interference
`
`with the RNC’s relationship with its financial supporters. In that time, the RNC has refuted each one
`
`of the serial excuses Google has offered for why it persists in blocking the RNC’s emails to its
`
`supporters, to this day. Google has now fallen silent, no longer deigning to justify its actions in the
`
`months prior to the pivotal 2022 election.
`
`31.
`
`Upon noticing that Google was diverting nearly all of its emails to users’ spam folders
`
`in December 2021, the RNC contacted Google to discuss the issue. Google responded by suggesting
`
`that the RNC reduce the frequency of emails that it sends at the end of each month. The RNC and
`
`Google also agreed to stay in regular communication to address the issue.
`
`32.
`
`From January 28, 2022, to January 30, 2022, the RNC again noticed a sharp decline in
`
`its Gmail inboxing rate. It again contacted Google, which did not provide any additional advice.
`
`33.
`
`On February 14, the RNC conducted an internal test called the “A/B test.” For this test,
`
`the RNC created two versions of an email whose contents were identical—except that Version A and
`
`Version B had links to different variants of an RNC donation page. The RNC then selected two groups
`
`of different individuals—Group X and Group Y—to send the emails to; there was no overlap between
`
`the groups. The RNC sent Version A to Group X and sent Version B to Group Y. Even though no
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`recipient received two emails, Version A inboxed at the normal rate, while Version B inboxed at a rate
`
`of approximately 0% (i.e., Version B went entirely to spam, while Version A didn’t). The RNC
`
`replicated the test using a new email send, with an identical Version A and Version B that again only
`
`differed in the variant of the donation pages they linked to. These emails again were sent to two groups
`
`that did not overlap. The RNC observed the same result: An entire batch of one version of the email
`
`went to spam, while the other did not. This test suggests that Google is not suppressing RNC emails
`
`based on their communicative content.
`
`34.
`
`Indeed, the RNC immediately informed Google of the results of its February 14 test.
`
`Although Google initially told the RNC that it would check with its product team and provide an
`
`10
`
`explanation as soon as it could, Google did not respond for the remainder of the month. To this day,
`
`11
`
`Google has never responded to the RNC’s findings.
`
`12
`
`35.
`
`From February 1 to 2, and on February 21, Gmail diverted the RNC’s emails to spam
`
`13
`
`folders, causing its inboxing rate to fall to approximately 0%.
`
`14
`
`36.
`
`Finally, Google responded that the monthly crashing of the RNC’s inboxing rate was
`
`15
`
`due to a high number of user complaints. It also sent the RNC a list of best practices to avoid having
`
`16
`
`emails labeled as spam, such as monitoring their “Postmaster’s Tools” (an application that allows for
`
`17
`
`email senders to view their ‘reputation’ with a given email provider) or checking their Email Service
`
`18
`
`Provider (“ESP”) for any irregularities. But Google’s explanation was not true. As the RNC informed
`
`19
`
`Google, it already had been actively monitoring its Postmaster Tools, and those tools showed that there
`
`20
`
`were no reputational issues. The RNC also had been told by its ESP, Salesforce, that there were no
`
`21
`
`irregularities causing the issue. There was also no increase in user complaints preceding periods when
`
`22
`
`its inboxing rate fell to nearly 0%. From March 25 to 26, the RNC’s inboxing rate again fell to
`
`23
`
`approximately 0%.
`
`24
`
`37.
`
`On March 25, the RNC again contacted Google to notify them that the issue was
`
`25
`
`reoccurring even though the RNC still had a “HIGH” reputation in Postmaster. The RNC also reminded
`
`26
`
`Google that the RNC previously submitted information to Google, such as the email address from
`
`27
`
`which its emails were sent, the displayed name of the sender, the subject line, and preview text using a
`
`28
`
`Google form designed to collect this information to avoid mislabeling a sender’s email as spam.
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`12
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Eventually, Google agreed to meet again with the RNC to discuss these issues.
`
`To provide context ahead of the meeting, the RNC sent Google an email that
`
`documented the RNC’s recent efforts to adopt Google’s suggestions:
`
`For your awareness, we had more significant inboxing issues pop up after I
`emailed on Friday and throughout the weekend.... Volume was almost
`identical across all days and there was no change in our sending strategy.
`We have also not seen any rise in spam reports in ReturnPath [now called
`Everest] and our domains all look healthy. We’ve noticed that these issues
`tend to arise most frequently on weekends that include key events for our
`fundraising and voter contact.... Multiple emails sent over the weekend were
`expected to be top-performers but all hit spam. We are also going from
`100% inboxing to 0% inboxing; there is not much in-between.
`
`40.
`
`On March 29, the RNC met with Google as planned. Google did not present the RNC
`
`with any new actionable suggestions, but Google offered to have weekly calls with the RNC to discuss
`
`the issue. The RNC accepted this offer and met with Google representatives twice. Then, Google’s
`
`representative informed the RNC that she could not meet with the RNC because she had been informed
`
`that she was not legally permitted to do so.
`
`41.
`
`The RNC once again experienced inboxing problems through April and May. On April
`
`25 to 27, and again on May 27 to 28, the RNC’s emails to its supporters who use Gmail were predictably
`
`throttled. The RNC continued to contact Google employees and submit reports to Google, but the RNC
`
`received no answers and no solutions in return.
`
`42.
`
`On June 14, Google blamed the RNC’s press releases as the reason it was diverting the
`
`RNC’s emails at the end of each month to Gmail users’ spam folders. Again, Google’s explanation was
`
`erroneous. After all, the RNC’s press releases are issued from an entirely different email domain (email
`
`address) and by comparison were just 0.3% of the email volume as the RNC’s main marketing domain.
`
`43.
`
`Two weeks later, on June 28, the RNC’s inboxing rate for Gmail users again dropped
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`to 0%.
`
`25
`
`///
`
`26
`
`///
`
`27
`
`///
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`13
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-01077 Document 1 Filed 10/21/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`44.
`
`The next day, on June 29, Google provided two new suggestions for its discriminatory
`
`spam filtering: (1) that the RNC’s domain authentication (a system ensuring an email comes from the
`
`purported sender) was possibly at fault; and (2) that the issue could be a result of Google’s algorithmic
`
`spamming system, which collects spam reports over the course of the month and eventually causes a
`
`sender’s email to be diverted to Gmail users’ spam folders. But again, this was no comfort to the RNC.
`
`As the RNC notified Google, Salesforce had already confirmed that its authenticator was functioning
`
`properly, and the algorithmic spamming explanation was contradicted by data showing that RNC
`
`emails only received spam complaints at 0.01%, the lowest rate the RNC had observed since it began
`
`tracking the statistic.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`On July 29, the RNC’s inboxing rate fell to nearly 0%.
`
`On August 11, Google came to the RNC to give a training on “Email Best Practices”
`
`to the RNC’s digital department.
`
`47.
`
`Despite the RNC following Google’s best practices, the filtering reoccurred. On
`
`August 29, the RNC’