A Virginia man’s lawsuit alleging Google, in concert with the Vatican and the U.S. Government, suppressed his religious website and social media content was dismissed this month by a federal court, with all twelve of the plaintiff’s claims failing as a matter of law. The ruling, issued February 9, 2026, in Richards v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00082, in the Western District of Virginia, also denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
Thomas Richards, who operates “SpirituallySmart.com” and has maintained an online biblical ministry for over 25 years, claimed Google intentionally limited the visibility of his content in search results and blocked notifications to users, effectively silencing his religious expression. He alleged this suppression was a coordinated effort involving the Vatican and various U.S. Government entities.
Richards’ amended complaint encompassed First Amendment violations, claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), accusations of “common-carrier discrimination,” and multiple state-law claims including tortious interference and defamation. He sought a temporary restraining order to immediately restore visibility to his online presence while the case proceeded.
The court rejected Richards’ First Amendment arguments, stating that Google, as a private company, is not bound by the same constitutional constraints as the government. While Richards argued Google’s actions constituted state action due to alleged coordination with government entities and the influence of recent executive orders concerning artificial intelligence, the court found these assertions insufficient. The court noted the cited executive orders focused on internal government use of AI, not the operation of Google’s search algorithms.
Regarding the claim of Vatican involvement, the court determined that any partnership between Google and the Vatican did not establish a link to the U.S. Government necessary to trigger constitutional protections. The court also dismissed the argument that Google’s alleged monopolistic status transformed it into a state actor, finding that previous cases addressing monopolistic behavior did not concern search result prioritization.
The court also dismissed Richards’ attempt to classify Google as a common carrier, citing a prior Ohio state court decision that declined to apply such a designation to Google. While Richards argued the Ohio ruling was inapplicable, the Virginia court found that state law would not yield a different outcome.
The RFRA claim also failed, as the court found Richards’ assertions of government coordination with Google were too speculative to establish the necessary connection for a RFRA violation.
Richards’ state law claims fared no better. The court cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a bar to claims such as tortious interference and defamation. The court found that the statute of limitations had expired on some claims, and that Richards had failed to present sufficient factual evidence to support the remaining state-law allegations.
In denying the motion for a temporary restraining order, the court stated that Richards had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief.
The case was presided over by Judge Urbanski in the Western District of Virginia at Harrisonburg. The full opinion spans 23 pages (VLW 026-3-066).
