Virginia Supreme Court Petition Filed: Richards v. AOL Media LLC
December 19, 2025
Update: We Have Escalated to the Virginia Supreme Court
Today we filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of Virginia, asking the Court to overturn the Loudoun County Circuit Court's denial of our request for emergency relief against AOL.
What Happened
On December 17, 2025, Judge Matthew P. Snow of the Loudoun County Circuit Court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order against AOL. The court ruled that our motion "DOES NOT ARTICULATE a legal docketing emergency" and directed the parties to "normal docketing procedures." In other words, the court refused to schedule an expedited hearing -- which means no hearing can occur before January 2, 2026.
But here is the problem: "normal docketing procedures" will not produce a hearing before the harm occurs. And this is not just about missing a TRO deadline -- the entire lawsuit is about preventing AOL from reading Thomas's private emails. If they start reading them on January 2, the harm is done. There is nothing left to enjoin. The case is over. Judge Snow's order does not just deny emergency relief -- it effectively ends the entire case by ensuring there is nothing left to litigate by the time "normal docketing procedures" would produce a hearing.
Once AOL's new terms take effect on January 2, 2026, Thomas faces an impossible choice. He must either:
(1) Accept the new terms and allow AOL to read, analyze, and share the contents of his private emails with AI providers and third parties, retaining that data for up to ten years; or
(2) Refuse the new terms and lose access to an email account he has used for 25 years -- an account tied to his identity, his ministry, his professional contacts, and decades of irreplaceable correspondence.
Neither option can be remedied by money damages after the fact. You cannot unread someone's private emails. You cannot undo the sharing of sensitive religious correspondence with unknown third parties. And you cannot recreate 25 years of digital history.
Why the Virginia Supreme Court
Virginia Code § 8.01-626 provides a special procedure for seeking immediate review of injunction denials. Unlike a regular appeal, which can take months or years, a petition under § 8.01-626 goes directly to a three-justice panel of the Supreme Court, which can act quickly and has broad authority to "take such action thereon as it considers appropriate."
We have requested expedited consideration. The Court knows that AOL's new terms take effect January 2, 2026 -- just two weeks away. After that date, this case becomes moot.
Virginia's Strong Public Policy on Data Privacy
Our petition highlights Virginia's own consumer protection laws. The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act requires consumer consent for processing sensitive data, including data revealing religious beliefs. More importantly, the VCDPA declares that any contract provision that purports to waive or limit consumer data rights "shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable." Va. Code § 59.1-578(B).
AOL's new terms attempt to do exactly what Virginia law says is void and unenforceable -- strip consumers of their data rights through a take-it-or-leave-it adhesion contract with no meaningful way to opt out.
The Stakes
This case is not just about one email account. AOL reportedly has approximately 30 million users. On Thanksgiving Day, all of them received the same notice buried in linked documents -- a notice that their private communications will soon be analyzed by AI and shared with third parties.
If AOL can do this, so can every other email provider. The precedent matters.
All case filings: View all documents in Richards v. AOL Media LLC
We will continue to update this page as developments occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment