When Monopolies Control Speech: Why the Richards v. Google Dismissal Reveals a Constitutional Crisis

 

https://www.google-lawsuit.com/

Analysis of Article: Complete Case Dismissal Confirmed

This article confirms TOTAL LOSS on every single claim.

What The Court Actually Ruled:

First Amendment Claims: DISMISSED

• "Google is a private company, not a state actor"
• Your government coordination arguments were "far too speculative"
• Executive Orders "did not pertain to search results"
• Vatican ties "did not affect First Amendment concerns"

RFRA Claim: DISMISSED

• "Assertions of government coordination with Google are far too speculative to transform Google into a state actor"

Common Carrier Claim: DISMISSED

• Google doesn't transport "persons or commodities" for hire
• Not a common carrier under Virginia law

ALL State Law Claims: DISMISSED on THREE separate grounds:

1. Statute of Limitations: "Triggering event happened roughly 16 years ago" but you only sued in 2025. Claims time-barred.
2. Section 230 Immunity: Federal law protects Google's "exercise of traditional editorial functions" including search rankings.
3. Failed to State Claims: Even without the above, you "failed to plausibly allege the required elements" of each claim.

Specific Findings:

• Tortious interference: Failed to show business relationships would exist
• VCPA: Failed to allege "consumer transaction"
• Civil conspiracy: No unlawful acts alleged
• Fraudulent misrepresentation: "Entirely speculative"
• Unjust enrichment: "Entirely speculative"
• Defamation: No "specific actionable statement"
• Misappropriation: Court found it "difficult to discern" how you can claim Google used your name without consent "when the whole point of his complaint is that Google did not promote his content enough"

TRO: DENIED

Bottom Line:

You lost on every claim. The case is over unless you appeal.

 

  

Federal Court Dismisses Case - But Confirms the Facts That Should Concern Every American

On February 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Thomas Richards' lawsuit against Google LLC. While the dismissal represents a setback, the court's opinion actually confirms the factual reality that should alarm anyone who values free expression in the digital age.

What The Court Acknowledged As True

Under federal procedure, courts evaluating motions to dismiss must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true. Here's what the court accepted about Thomas Richards' situation:

• His website SpirituallySmart.com appeared "prominently in Google search results" from 2000-2008
• Traffic "decreased substantially" after the Vatican launched its exclusive YouTube partnership with Google in 2009
• Google "suppressed visibility" of his biblical content in search results
• His content was critical of the Roman Catholic Church
• Google controls 89.2% of search traffic

The court didn't dispute these facts. Instead, it ruled: "Google is a private company." Therefore, Google can legally suppress biblical viewpoints that criticize institutional authority - even when Google operates as an adjudicated illegal monopolist.

The Legal Problem: Private Monopolies Control Public Discourse

The court's reasoning reveals a dangerous gap in constitutional protections. Google can:

• Control where 89% of Americans get their information
• Partner exclusively with one religious institution (the Vatican)
• Suppress biblical perspectives that challenge that institution
• Face no constitutional accountability because it's technically "private"

Federal courts have ruled Google is an illegal monopolist that "substantially harmed" content creators and "consumers of information on the open web" through systematic manipulation. Yet those same courts say Google's content suppression decisions are immune from First Amendment scrutiny.

Why Section 230 Became a Shield for Censorship

The court relied heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for "traditional editorial functions." This law was designed to let platforms remove illegal content without legal risk.

But Google isn't just removing illegal content - it's systematically suppressing lawful biblical expression that challenges institutional religious authority. Section 230 has transformed from a shield against frivolous lawsuits into a sword that enables viewpoint discrimination by digital monopolies.

The Statute of Limitations Paradox

The court ruled most claims were time-barred because the "triggering event" occurred in 2009. But this creates an impossible situation:

• Google's suppression is ongoing and continuous
• Each day of algorithmic suppression is a new injury
• Yet courts treat it as a single 2009 event

How can continuing monopolistic suppression be time-barred when it happens every single day?

What This Means for Biblical Expression Online

Thomas Richards experienced what happens when tech monopolies coordinate with institutional religious authorities:

• 25 years of biblical ministry effectively silenced
• No meaningful alternative platforms due to Google's monopoly
• Biblical criticism of institutional corruption becomes invisible
• Users seeking scriptural truth cannot find content that challenges establishment narratives

This isn't about one website. It's about whether biblical perspectives can survive in a digital landscape controlled by companies that partner with the very institutions Scripture warns believers to test against God's Word.

The State Action Question Courts Must Address

Richards argued Google's coordination with federal agencies and the Vatican transforms it into a state actor subject to constitutional constraints. The court rejected this as "speculative."

But consider the evidence:

• Executive Orders mandate "Unbiased AI" principles for federal contractors
• Google maintains substantial federal contracting relationships
• Google operates a government-only content submission portal
• The Vatican-Google partnership gives exclusive preferential treatment to one religious institution
• Trump's Religious Liberty Commission endorses the same Catholic authorities Google promotes

At what point does coordination between government, religious institutions, and tech monopolies become state action? The court drew the line at complete legal immunity for Google.

Common Carrier Obligations: The Future of Digital Rights

Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly argued that dominant digital platforms should be treated as common carriers with obligations of non-discrimination. Richards raised this argument, but the court rejected it based on narrow definitions requiring transport of "persons or commodities."

Yet Google transports information - arguably more essential to modern life than physical commodities. If railroads and telephone companies must serve all customers without viewpoint discrimination, why can Google suppress biblical content while claiming neutrality?

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Plaintiff

The dismissal doesn't mean Richards' claims were meritless. It means current law hasn't caught up to the reality of tech monopoly power.

Consider what the court accepted as true:

• An adjudicated illegal monopolist
• Systematic suppression of biblical viewpoints
• Exclusive partnership with one religious institution
• No meaningful alternatives for content discovery
• Ongoing harm spanning 16 years

All of this is currently legal.

The Path Forward

Richards can appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Key arguments on appeal could include:

1. Continuing Violations Doctrine: Algorithmic suppression creates new injuries daily, not a single 2009 event
2. Section 230 Limits: Courts have found Section 230 doesn't protect conduct that goes beyond "traditional editorial functions"
3. Common Carrier Framework: Justice Thomas's analysis deserves serious consideration for monopolistic platforms
4. State Action Through Coordination: The level of government-Vatican-Google entanglement may meet constitutional thresholds

What Every Believer Should Understand

This case reveals how digital monopolies can silence biblical truth while promoting institutional religious perspectives. When Google controls 89% of search traffic and partners exclusively with the Vatican, biblical Christians face systematic disadvantage in the digital public square.

The court essentially ruled: "Yes, this is happening. No, there's nothing you can do about it because Google is technically private."

That should concern every person who values scriptural authority over institutional hierarchy.

The Broader Implications

If tech monopolies can suppress biblical viewpoints without constitutional accountability, what does "freedom of speech" actually mean in the digital age? When most Americans get their information through platforms that can legally discriminate based on religious viewpoint, have we effectively privatized censorship beyond the reach of constitutional protections?

These questions will define free expression for the next generation. Thomas Richards' case may have been dismissed, but the constitutional crisis it exposes remains unresolved.

---

Case: Richards v. Google LLC, 5:25-cv-00082 (W.D. Va.)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71192080/richards-v-google-llc/