Virginia Minister’s Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Virginia biblical minister Thomas Richards against Google LLC, alleging systematic suppression of his religious content and preferential treatment towards the Vatican. The case, Richards v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00082, was decided on February 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Harrisonburg.

Background of the Lawsuit

Thomas Richards, founder of SpirituallySmart.com, claimed Google, in partnership with the Vatican and the U.S. Government, limited the visibility of his website and social media content in search results. He alleged this suppression violated the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and Virginia state laws.

Dismissal of Constitutional Claims

The court dismissed Richards’ First Amendment claims, affirming that Google, as a private company, is not bound by the same constitutional restrictions as a government entity. Richards argued Google acted as a state actor due to executive orders concerning AI development and alleged coordination with the Vatican and U.S. Government. Still, the court found the cited executive orders related to federal AI restrictions, not Google’s search results, and that any Vatican-Google partnership did not equate to government entanglement.

Common Carrier Argument Rejected

Richards’ attempt to classify Google as a common carrier was also rejected. The court referenced an Ohio state court decision declining to treat Google as such and determined Virginia’s common carrier law would yield similar results.

RFRA Claim Dismissed

The court dismissed the RFRA claim, finding Richards’ assertions of government coordination with Google were too speculative to establish Google as a state actor.

State Law Claims Barred

Richards’ state law claims, including tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and defamation, were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and relevant statutes of limitations. The court also found Richards failed to adequately support the elements of these claims.

Temporary Restraining Order Denied

The court denied Richards’ motion for a temporary restraining order, citing a lack of likelihood of success on the merits and failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Key Takeaways

• The court affirmed that private companies like Google are not subject to the same constitutional constraints as government entities.
• Speculative claims of government coordination were insufficient to establish state action.
• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to shield online platforms from certain state law claims.