Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google For $50 Million Over Suspension of Ad Account (usatoday.com) 236
Representative Tulsi Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, is suing Google for infringing on her free speech (alternative source) when it briefly suspended her campaign's advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is seeking damages of at least $50 million. It's believed to be the first time a presidential candidate has sued a major technology firm. The New York Times reports: Tulsi Now Inc., the campaign committee for Ms. Gabbard, said Google suspended the campaign's advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28, obstructing its ability to raise money and spread her message to potential voters. After the first Democratic debate, Ms. Gabbard was briefly the most searched-for candidate on Google. Her campaign wanted to capitalize on the attention she was receiving by buying ads that would have placed its website at the top of search results for her name. The lawsuit also said the Gabbard campaign believed its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at "a disproportionately high rate" when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates. Ms. Gabbard and her campaign are seeking an injunction against Google from further meddling in the election and damages of at least $50 million.
Merits aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one way, albeit a long shot one, to raise campaign funds.
It's actually counterproductive. If she's at all serious about this suit she'll have to pay significant legal fees to pursue it, and the odds of a case like this being decided (in her favor) before the primaries are virtually nil.
I'd be surprised if she realistically sees this as anything beyond a publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? There's mountains of evidence that Google skews results in their favor, politically or otherwise. One of their engineers got put on leave just this week for acknowledging it.
Re: (Score:2)
Very different from Europe, where governments have the right to attack platforms if they do something the government doesn't like.
Somehow there's people who think giving the US government the right to attack these platforms will be used for good.
I think cases like Manning, Snowden and Assange show how that power will be used in reality.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty sure them denying Tulsi's ad account is flat out illegal. Same reason the TV cannot deny political ads even if they don't like them
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/why-broadcasters-have-to-air-political-attack-ads-even-if-they-dont-want-to/
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that Google isn't a broadcasting or press entity. Lot of those regulations don't apply to them because they are merely an aggregator. Not saying that they shouldn't have some of those regulations applied to them, but this is the problem with giving large entities free reign...
Re: (Score:2)
That's ignoring abusive monopolies, along with the fact that the US government has both ordered tech companies to censor, along with telling them who to censor with government-funded think tanks like the Atlantic Council.
Re: (Score:2)
If she's at all serious about this suit she'll have to pay significant legal fees to pursue it
These sorts of lawsuits never go to trial. She is getting some attention, and Google will agree to make some sort of statement agreeing not to do it again, giving her even more attention.
She is a long-shot candidate, and most voters have never heard of her, so any visibility is good.
Re: (Score:2)
She is less than a long-shot candidate. Bernie is currently a long-shot candidate. Gabbard is so far in the weeds she should grab some Roundup(TM) before she disappears completely.
I wish most of the idiot "less than long-shot candidates" (that includes you, Yang, Booker, Williamson, et al.) would drop out and stop making the race so cacophonous that no one can hear anything. All they're doing at this point is parroting the policies of more likely candidates and clogging the pipes. But their giant egos are
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely that this is them "blowing it" given this happens damn near every cycle to one party or the other. The Republican party had a massive field, ended up with the longest of long shot candidates and he fucking won (much to many people's chagrin). It just looks this way right now because the party has so much noise, but I promise you only those directly in politics or the most die-hard followers of it are paying that much attention. The field will clear our close to the general election and it'll all
Re: (Score:3)
The Republican party had a massive field, ended up with the longest of long shot candidates and he fucking won
Trump was never a long shot. He soared to the top of the polls as soon as he announced his candidacy.
Most disliked (Score:2)
Neither the polls nor the primary system are democratic when they allow a candidate disliked by eg 60% to win.
Re: Most disliked (Score:2)
The problem is Hillary supporters cluster together in a handful of states.
Trumpâ(TM)s electoral victory was far from close - it was a clear, decisive decision.
BTW, the system is fine - somehow Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama got elected, itâ(TM)s not âthe systemâ(TM)s faultâ(TM) that Hillary and Al Gore lost - they sucked as candidates.
Re: Merits aside... (Score:3)
Trump âoewonâ due to billions of dollars worth of free publicity from mainstream media and thanks to a massive effort from Russia to subvert America's âoefree and fairâ elections (ignore the voter disenfranchisement, election fraud, and gerrymandering).
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians spent $100k on Facebook ads. Clinton and Trump spent $81M. How much influence are you attributing to them?
https://www.cnet.com/news/this... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He soared to the top of the polls as soon as he announced his candidacy.
He sure did, by paying to have them hacked. [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"he fucking won" because he got $2 Billion worth of free media. Nobody else is ever going to get that. He also won because the remaining 16 candidates were splitting the polls. Had any one or two of them been running against Trump, we'd have a different president.
Re: (Score:2)
So the corporate media lies continue. The most ill favoured candidate Slimey Joe Biden but not according to corporate main stream media or corporate polls, I WONDER FUCKING WHY. The most hated candidate by corporate main stream media and of course the big tech companies and the war induustrial complex Tulsi Gabbard, hence why corporate main stream media and corporate polls rate Tulsi the lowest, a straight up corporate lie, just propaganda. Keep saying Slimey Joe is popular and not matter how UNPOPULAR he i
Re: (Score:2)
... and most voters have never heard of her.
Guess why that might be so...
Re: (Score:2)
... and most voters have never heard of her.
Guess why that might be so...
Because she's a virtual nobody? Seriously, how many US representatives do you know, especially those who've only been there for a few years?
Re: (Score:2)
That's one way, albeit a long shot one, to raise campaign funds.
It's actually counterproductive. If she's at all serious about this suit she'll have to pay significant legal fees to pursue it, and the odds of a case like this being decided (in her favor) before the primaries are virtually nil.
I'd be surprised if she realistically sees this as anything beyond a publicity stunt.
That was my first thought, until I put myself into politic mode: A publicity stunt that may lead to national coverage on the evening news & interwebs, all free advertising for her campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought, until I put myself into politic mode: A publicity stunt that may lead to national coverage on the evening news & interwebs
As opposed to the non-tautological sort of publicity stunt?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to ruin your fantasies, snowflakes. Truth hurts sometimes, I know.
Re:Merits aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google needs to face some consequences for blatant sabotage of political candidates they don't like. (Facebook too.)
I'm not sure if she has legal ground for this suit, but if she doesn't then Congress should damn well create one. America's single biggest problem IMO is the power large corporations have over politics. And it's bad enough just with the old-school campaign donations, the last thing we need is yet another avenue for corporate control!
Re: (Score:2)
Google needs to face some consequences for blatant sabotage of political candidates they don't like.
This is more likely a case of Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org]. The surge in hits likely triggered some automatic spam detection heuristic.
Why would Google dislike Tulsi Gabbard? She is a generic progressive Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Google has a nice excuse. Yes, many people will find it plausible. I won't.
For me it's clear that Tulsi's bold, unique anti-war platform will put the whole corporate America against her.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is run for the benefit of the global elite (since CFR member Schmidt took over) and we have high-ranking Google employees on tape saying that they've been tasked with making sure Trump does not win again.
Tulsi is a sensible, anti-war, honest progressive with the stated goal of America minding its own business around this world, AND she's a combat veteran. This is precisely the opposite of the CFR/PNAS agenda and she's a credible opposition candidate.
Everybody should watch her podcast with Joe Rogan
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for corporate power, you're right about that, they're our ruling class. Take a look sometime at who sits on the board of directors for major companies, it's the same few people. The way to reign them in is to take power away from them, and, well, that means regulation and taxes. But remember, that power doesn't go away. You need to work to spread it around. That means stronger voting rights including things like mandatory voting (the best way to end voter suppression) and declaring voting a universal right (yes, that means prisoners get to vote, if we've got so many ax murders and pedophiles that they're swinging elections maybe we need to fix that first).
This also means wealth redistribution, because money is power. I'm no communist (they never get past the "dictator" part in the "dictatorship of the proles") but we need high minimum wages, universal healthcare and tuition free college and large scale federal jobs programs (we've got one in all 50 states, it's called the Military Industrial Complex, but we'd be much better off with the Green New Deal). In other words, instead of supply side economics (aka "trickle down") we do demand side economics. I've said it before and I'll say it again: companies don't hire and pay because they've got money, they do it to meet demand.
Bottom line: Money is power. The more money somebody has the more power they have. If you want somebody to have less power you've got to take away some of their money. Once you do that you've got to worry about what to do with all that money (power) that you took away. This is the hard work of having a free society, but if we don't do it then we just end up with oligarchy of one kind or another. And I don't care if the jackboot on my neck is public or private, it's still a jackboot.
Re: (Score:3)
Does Google not have the right to freedom of association?
No, it damn well does not. The owners of Google are a collection of strangers with no uniting political objective. And a corporation per se has not one right. Any right Google has can only be rights of its owners.
That said, if your argument is that Google wields too much power I'm OK with that, but that's what anti-trust law is for.
Current anti-trust law doesn't cover this, But it should.
This also means wealth redistribution, because money is power.
In the US, for the most part, wealth redistribution requires only patience. There is almost no tradition "old rich" aristocracy, and very few rich people have rich great-grandkids.
Oh, there's a little, the richest 100 families are a real
Ok, so far so good (Score:2)
But that's not really a fair comparison, since many jurisdictions make sexuality a protected class. Are we ready to make political affiliation a protected class?
Also it's easy to be patient when you're doing quite well, which I suspect you are. It's much harder when you're one of the 35,000 Americans who will die of treatable illnesses, or if you're the parent of one.
But moreover we're at levels of wealth ineq
Re: (Score:2)
Can you see the difference between a publicly traded corporation with no uniting purpose other than profit, and a person? It's kind of important, no?
Also it's easy to be patient when you're doing quite well,
99% of Americans live better than 95% of everyone who has ever lived.
But moreover we're at levels of wealth inequality
And yet, more people have some (non-trivial) wealth in 21st century America than most places and times across history.
I get that you don't care about any of this, and just want to lnych those damn richers, but it's better to focus on increasing the wealth of the average guy (which is a matter
Re: (Score:2)
How many hundreds of years do you think it will be before a Walton has to sink or swim in the economy with the rest of us shlubs? The brats don't have to be individually rich to be exempt from the struggle to make a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Your envy is palpable. It's not healthy. Good for them, the fewer people who need ot work for a living, the better.
Sam Walton did not arrange for a single grand-kid to get his entire fortune, rather, he divided it 3 ways IIRC. That's all that's needed. If wealth disperses to an exponentially growing number of people over time, that's ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "I have no response to the point you just made, so I'm going to project some butthurt and engage in lazy hand waiving". If you weren't blowing smoke up your own ass, you'd be pointing out how Vanderbilt scion Anderson Cooper was homeless for a year before getting his start at Channel One which lead to his current CNN digs. You know, if that sort of thing actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, for the most part, wealth redistribution requires only patience. There is almost no tradition "old rich" aristocracy, and very few rich people have rich great-grandkids.
Seems not though.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ed... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Google is a private company. They can be as biased as they want.
It would be nice if they had more integrity than that, but it is not a legal requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
TV stations are private companies too, but they are required by law to provide equal access to all candidates.
TV stations are licensed by the FCC to operate on public spectrum. Google is not a TV station, and is not covered by the FCC's campaign advertising rules.
Re: Merits aside... (Score:2)
That law is no longer enforced. Fox News broadcasts entire Trump rallies, but not his opponentsâ(TM) rallies.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting of those Trump rallies are not paid ads, they are just news/editorial content. The "equal time" rules that that might have violated went away long ago.
Lulz (Score:2)
Biased against Trump, you mean. If Jeb had won Google would have been perfectly happy, just as they were during the Dubbya Administration. That and the fact that Democrats are the other conservative party.
Re: Merits aside... (Score:2)
The lawsuit says it's intentional
Oh wait, thatâ(TM)s all we need to know - no need for a trial, the prosecutor said it was intentional? Well case closed, lord know no attorney ever mis-represented a situation in a lawsuit!
How does the accuserâ(TM)s lawyer know it was intentional?
Re: (Score:2)
plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
Statement of fact - you're a drooling McCarthyite moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is majority democrat. The House is, and they outnumber the Senate. You'd expect republicans to defend corporate rights, and dems attacking corps to defend individuals was once just a given. But those roles seem to be flipping/
Re: (Score:2)
Look, it's Slashdot, I get it, no one reads TFA. And not reading the summary is understandable these days. But at least read the freaking headline.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought.
The most hilarious outcome would be for Google to provide conclusive proof that a) her campaign emails were, in fact, ending up in spam folders, because b) they were manually marked as spam by the recipients.
Re: Merits aside... (Score:2)
Or an ingenious way to white-wash a HUGE illegal campaign contribution...
âoeItâ(TM)s not a bribe, itâ(TM)s a settlement from a lawsuit!â
$50M for a 6 hour outage?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
She' from Hawaii. Most people forget that's part of the US, and Hawaiians like it that way. Tulsi is a bit of an odd egg, from a conservative, religious family, but she's liberal in many ways Her politics are rather eclectic, with her one stand out feature being that she is a veteran who is opposed to US military intervention abroad.
Being anti-military-industrial-complex means the long knives are out for her in any national election. The elites do so love to get their war on. Rabid support for bombing brown
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, those 'brown folks' as you so condescendingly call them, are cheerfully happy to bomb each other and us at the soonest opportunity.
We are not unusual in our desire to kill people who declare themselves our enemies - It's been a steady pattern all through human history. What is extraordinary, is that white radical leftists seem to be the only group of people in history to display a negative in-group preference. They seem to profoundly hate themselves and all other white people.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you understand full well that I am mocking a phrase that racists use to justify aggression, and your complaint is merely rhetorical.
Re: (Score:2)
Eclectic is right, and her conservative policies got her correctly banned. We don't need to give those ideas a voice.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most people forget that's part of the US..."
Sorry, I stopped reading after that idiotic comment.
Re: (Score:3)
What proof do you have besides an emotional "Grr these hippies hate the WRONG THINGS about America!"
What proof do you have that peacekeeping operations are "Wars of Aggression"? For better or worse, the US is the global policeman. But there is a gigantic difference between settling fights between nations, stopping genocides, and keeping the peace, and pursuing worldwide conquest the way that other "most powerful nations" have throughout history. I'm not saying that the US has always been perfect in picki
Re:Merits aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, you did see the list of articles I provided above, yes? Most of our military interventions have been about protecting corporate interests, not some ideal of "peacekeeping." Please though, let's try to keep this civil. No need for "you idiots" type verbiage, is there? As I said, I come from a military family. My grandfather was a Major in the army. Of course I think our actions in WWI and WWII are defensible,and morally correct. Many more of our adventures overseas have been for dubious aims, and going to war just to enrich some well connected elitist asshole is a misuse of our military.
In case you think I was cherry picking articles on US military interventions, here's the google search. You can read up to your heart's content. https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Most of our military interventions have been about protecting corporate interests, not some ideal of "peacekeeping."
Korea, Vietnam (not arguing that we should have been there, but corporate reasons?), Bosnia, Grenada, Haiti, Kosovo, Uganda, Somalia? What ere the corporate interests? I'd add Panama, but yeah sure having access to the canal supports corporate interests...as it does all of our interests.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no such thing as a single overarching "Hinduism", nor any authority that can denounce something as "not Hinduism" so long as general pantheon is agreed on. There ARE such things as "Hinduisms". Because of the nature of major polytheistic religions, they are almost always very separate from one another even on the same pantheon.
This is the same thing we had in Rome. Same pantheon, completely different kinds of worship based on the temple and the location.
So yes, she's a Hindu. Just because someone wh
Re: Merits aside... (Score:2)
And sheâ(TM)s polling at what level?
And that would be an excuse for (Score:2)
I like Tulsi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be cooler if the summary included a WHY - or even a possible why it suspended the account.
Re: (Score:2)
She seems to not understand the rules that govern her current position very well. Not sure that speaks good things about how she would perform in higher office.
I've been thinking and I wonder (Score:2)
Our last President from Hawaii... (Score:1, Insightful)
...at least understood that the First Amendment only places limitations on what the government can do..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lincoln violated the constitution and amendments in almost every way possible.
At the end of his mass murder campaign every journalist that opposed him and many more people had been imprisoned.
He massively increased the power of governments, the politicians who inherited this power wanted to keep it.
So they invented the propaganda that the war was in order to abolish slavery.
Turns out terrorism works, even today conservatives celebrate Lincoln as a hero.
Whi
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda about propaganda. And all your whining about Lincoln is insignificant next to the evil that was slavery. So fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why a bakery doesn't have to bake a gay wedding cake?
Correct, which is why the bakery won the suit.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Masterpiece Cakeshop won the suit at the Supreme Court because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Masterpiece Cakeshop's religious freedoms in how they handled the case. The court didn't decide if the cake shop had the right to decline to bake a cake for a gay wedding if it violated the owner's religious beliefs.
There are similar cases headed the way of the Supreme Court that may, however, be decided on the merits to resolve this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Her lawsuit [documentcloud.org] states on the first page that it includes "Complaint for Violations of [...] First Amendment" among other things.
She (or her lawyers on her behalf) asserts that
and asserts that this district court is the appropriate court because:
She specifically calls out what she calls "Violations of the First A
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not a "public forum", as defined by the courts, while the sidewalk (along with parks) is a classic "public forum".
Google, of course, can't stop people from protesting (as long as they are not violating laws such as obstructing traffic -- in which case the police may remove/arrest them) on public lands outside of Google offices or data centers. However, they can certainly stop you from doing anything they want on their property. The servers etc. are Google property and they own/buy the bandwidth ne
Google putting their thumb on the scales. (Score:1)
No surprise there.
Social Credit Revoked (Score:2)
I guess she should have stayed in her lane instead of challenging Google's preferred candidates.
First Amendment Rights. (Score:2)
"First amendment", eh? (Score:2)
Google is now a branch of the federal government? This will certainly come as a surprise to them!
Re:"First amendment", eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Google is now a branch of the federal government?
I thought it was the other way around.
Eventually... (Score:2)
...despite being on the same political side, Democrats are going to eventually figure out that maybe having all your internets delivered by one giant mega firm might be something we should avoid.
Sort of the digital variation on Harvard McClain's quote "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have"...
Why are you posting spam like this? (Score:2)
Seriously, why?
Tulsi WHO? (Score:2)
'nuf said....
Tulsi on Joe Rogan (Score:2, Interesting)
Ms Gabbard depends upon zero PAC or corporate funds. So this period likely disabled her to get a bunch of funds.
Watch her on Joe Rogan. She's articulate and principled.
I suspect she was turned off by a Googler who, like this NYT whacko, had zero clue about Tulsi
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-05/watch-jimmy-dore-dismantle-nyt-journo-after-failed-tulsi-gabbard-hit-job
Re: (Score:2)
"I suspect she was turned off by a Googler who, like this NYT whacko, had zero clue about Tulsi"
It doesn't matter why. Someone/several/something at Google cut off a valid, recognized political candidate's ad account, a plain example of interference. Only the motive is in question, and it really doesn't matter. why. It's interference.
Google et al should be made to prove their actions, positive or negative, are NOT in-kind contributions to campaigns. If they cannot, and I submit they cannot, their options are
Re: (Score:2)
Google could be in trouble (Score:2)
Google wants the 'platform' protections of the Communications Decency Act section 230. But Google has been deciding who is and isn't permitted to use its 'platform' arguably based upon arbitrary and capricious standards.
A court could easily decide this makes them a publisher, which opens up a YUGE can of legal worms.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google were to be classified as a publisher, yes it would open up a huge can of legal worms. BUT, it would shut the door on this case even more quickly than it will be shut anyway. A publisher has great latitude to filter, select, curate, omit, emphasis whatever they want so Google could, using their Free Speech right (and, possibly, their Freedom of Press right) just tell Gabbard to pound sand - just as they can tell the KKK they won't run ads for their next cross burning.
Good! (Score:2)
Either the snake eats itself, or the industry electioneering is fully exposed.
I prefer the latter, since it leads to people abandoning the movement this electioneering supports, but the better/more effective solution is for the movement to kill itself with internal bickering and one-upmanship.
Either way, then I'll be left contemplating my own, chosen, entirely ineffective congressional political leadership. Bleagh.
Re: (Score:1)
The article says Google apologized and blamed it on an automated system. There is more different about this scenario than just the party she's running for.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's important to point out that Google did not provide a reason for the suspension until after the damage had been done and the lawsuit was filed.
From the Tulsi Gabbard perspective it's hard not to sympathize considering the suspicious timing.
(immediately following her debate when she was the most searched candidate and when she needed her ad words account most).
I wouldn't be surprised if it was an internal rouge employee(s) and now Google is citing a "policy" to CYA
Re: Private Company (Score:2)
Could you imagine what some Google employees could do if they changed from rouge to plaid?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, still applies. First Amendment protections apply to the laws that the Plaintiff would like to pass as a member of Congress, but not to the results of the Defendant's privately-held computing resources. My guess is that the Plaintiff / Congressperson is also a god damn lawyer and knows this already, and is looking for headlines. So good job Slashdot on being a useful idiot.
At least, I would fucking hope that she would already know, what with her actually being in the position of being able to write
Re: (Score:2)
Government serves the ruling class.
It always amazes me that people expect good from a maffia organization that commits acts of terrorism all over the place.
Re: (Score:1)
That includes religious bigotry.
Sadly government creates a lot of problems, that people think can be solved with more government.
Including Tulsi Gabbard, who's very socialist.
She opposes the wars, but without those wars the dollar would lose value and there would be hyper inflation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They claim to be against election meddling, but:
- Hillary had already been bought by both Russian and Saudi Arabia
- They're doing everything they can to let illegal immigrants vote
- Social media platforms are censoring people all over the place, especially anyone who opposes the ruling class
Re: (Score:2)
No private company has to give someone a platform. This isn't curtailing her free speech.
Re: (Score:1)
It's sad, but you aren't lying. Especially when you consider that her platform is pretty much where bernies was in 16.
Re: It's ok. (Score:1)
Absolutely.. the DNC already chose Biden, the primaries and 'voting' is pure theater, it is decided by superdelegates who are already bought and paid for.
On a positive note, 4 more years of Trump!
diff b/c Google provided a CONTRACTED service (Score:5, Informative)
In 1934, there was an election for governor of California. The Los Angeles Times -- then strongly Republican -- never once mentioned the Democrat candidate for governor (Upton Sinclair) by name. This was -- and still is -- considered the prerogative of the non-government corporation that owned the newspaper. How is Google's action any different.
Because Tulsi had an Ad-Words account that implies a covenant of good faith to provide service.
Arbitrarily suspending this account is violations of:
California Constitution Article I, Section 2
California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 51
Unfair Competition, Cal.Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Lanham Act—15U.S.C.1125 et seq.
The Lawsuit is very clear on how this violated free speech.
The Lawsuit explains
To speak to these Americans, Tulsi operated a Google Ads account (theAccount”). A Google Ads account allows a political candidate to speak directly to people who want to hear from her. For example, millions of people were searching for information on Tulsi Gabbard o nJune27-28,2019. Through Google Ads, Tulsi could instantaneously and directly speak to these people by linking them to her web page, which provides information about Gabbard’s background, policies, and goals. Or atleast that is how things are supposed to work on Google’s search platform—one of the largest forums for political speech in the entire world. In practice, however,Google plays favorites, with no warning, no transparency and no accountability (until now).
Read it yourself: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1510-complaint-tulsi-now-v-google/7394d92b6540191c57c5/optimized/full.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first four of those claims are properly bought in State courts initially.
I can't figure out what claim she is making WRT the Lanham Act - the lawsuit is poorly written and lacks support for its claims -- often wasting valuable word count on useless stump speech material (like "With this lawsuit, Tulsi is fighting back. She will be heard.").
This is all a publicity ploy and will go nowhere.
Re: diff b/c Google provided a CONTRACTED service (Score:2)
I haven't commented on shashdot in years but for your comments I just wanted to say your comment fits the idiocy of what this site has become. Russia agitprop Whatgarbl devoid of any substance. Please actually die.
Google breached good faith of a contracted service (Score:4, Interesting)
This was -- and still is -- considered the prerogative of the non-government corporation that owned the newspaper. How is Google's action any different..
Because the Los Angeles Times was not (without warning and suspect timing) arbitrarily suspending a CONTRACTED advertising campaign.
These two cases are therefore materially different and if you read the lawsuit you will see a very lucid explanation of how this infringed free speech. Tulsi's campaign had an agreement with Google in the form of an Ad-Words account.
Furthermore this act through negligence or intentional harm does violate a number of state civil codes (Cal.Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200 & Lanham Act—15U.S.C.1125)
Specific Complaints are for Violations of:
First Amendment
California Constitution Article I, Section 2
California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 51
Unfair Competition, Cal.Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Lanham Act—15U.S.C.1125 et seq.
How can this be a violation of free speech?
The Lawsuit explains
To speak to these Americans, Tulsi operated a Google Ads account (theAccount”). A Google Ads account allows a political candidate to speak directly to people who want to hear from her. For example, millions of people were searching for information on Tulsi Gabbard on June 27-28, 2019. Through Google Ads, Tulsi could instantaneously and directly speak to these people by linking them to her web page, which provides information about Gabbard’s background, policies, and goals. Or at least that is how things are supposed to work on Google’s search platform—one of the largest forums for political speech in the entire world. In practice, however, Google plays favorites, with no warning, no transparency and no accountability (until now).
Read the lawsuit yourself: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1510-complaint-tulsi-now-v-google/7394d92b6540191c57c5/optimized/full.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
I've not read the contract that people agree to when they create an account to run Google ads, but I doubt that there's not plenty of text in there protecting Google from being liable for automated systems that detect a sudden change in activity (such as a big ad buy that is unexpected) and delay offer of some service as a result.