Class Action Suit Targets Google for Canceling AdWords Firearms Companies' AdWords Accounts
Previous Post
Next Post

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

Has Your Business Been Stopped from Using Google AdWords/AdSense?
Class Action Lawsuit Pending

If your company was prevented from using Google AdWords/AdSense you are being invited to join a class action lawsuit that is now pending in federal court in San Jose, California.

To qualify, a person or company must have had its AdWords/AdSense account suspended or terminated by Google LLC between March 2014 and September 2017 based on the fact their websites advertised “any products that (i) were designed to injure an opponent in sport, self-defense or combat such as knives, crossbows and guns or (ii) which comprised any part or component necessary to the function of a gun (iii) or which were intended for attachment to a gun” in violation of Google’s “dangerous products or services policy.”

You do not necessarily have to hold an FFL to become a plaintiff in this lawsuit. Your business does not need to be based in California, it can be located anywhere in the United States.

No attorney fees or costs will be charged to join this federal class action lawsuit. Rather, plaintiff’s counsel will be paid by court order on a contingent basis.

If you are interested in learning more or in participating in the case you should directly contact William McGrane, Esq., who is acting as putative class action counsel in the pending federal class action lawsuit by emailing him at [email protected]. Mr. McGrane’s contact information and biography may be viewed at

You can read the original suit against Google here (PDF).

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Google will claim that they are a private business, and can legally decide who they do business with. Google will claim that since they are not agents of government, they are not violating the First Amendment by suppressing things, people, speech they don’t like. Courts will side with Google in declaring a private business may be discretionary when selecting business partners. Courts will then decide that even businesses using religious beliefs to determine with whom to do business are within their unalienable First Amendment rights.

      • “And that verdict will be read by singing Valkyries, seated on unicorns under a rainbow.”

        What do you have against Unicorns? They are amazing animals with powers far beyond human comprehension; they have the power and ability to be hidden entirely from man’s ocular tools. Disparaging Unicorns is a sign of a mind in need of a long rest. You should be more humble in your sarcasm of such majestic and mystical animals who operate beyond the physical manifestation. Besides, ridiculing Unicorns is some sort of animal abuse, I’m sure.

    • It doesn’t matter whether they are a private company or not.

      What matters is “what does the contract agreement” say?

      A contract is a contract is a contract.

      • “A contract is a contract is a contract.”

        Google is a master at weasel wording.

        But you can’t enforce illegal contracts, and as a public accommodation, Google could find their contract permitting indiscriminate prejudice against a legal business might not be enforceable.

    • Except that it will NOT be applied equitably. Anyone caught not doing business with anyone espousing leftist views will be prosecuted of unfair practices. Anyone not doing business with folks with traditionally American views will be lauded as leaders of liberty.

      • “Except that it will NOT be applied equitably. ”

        Yep, as the last sentence to my comment indicated. We do agree.

    • And any lawyer worth a damn will bring up the court records from the various DMCA lawsuits brought against them over the years, where they claimed no copyright onus because they are simply a platform for other’s content. Thereby waiving their right to suddenly start censoring.

      • “And any lawyer worth a damn will bring up the court records from the various DMCA lawsuits bright against them over the years,’

        No attorney, regardless of schooling, expertise, experience, trial acumen, win-loss record, or any other characteristic, outweighs a judge. The judges will inflict the justice they chose, regardless of the specifics of any trial. Jury verdicts can be overturned/vacated by the trial judge.

  2. Boy, David better bring his best sling if he wants to take on that Goliath.
    Good luck to them…

  3. I am not a fan of lawfare, but it is clear that the left isn’t going to stop until they get several doses of their own medicine.

    • The 75 percent wrong, 9th circuit. Pretty much all of the 9th circuit judges should be impeached. Anyone who gets it wrong that often is obviously ruling against the laws of the land intentionally in an attempt to legislate from the bench.

  4. I’ve obtained a copy of the live pleading (4th amended petition; attached to the petition for removal) and FW’d it to Dan Z; hopefully it’ll be posted here shortly. [Edit: I see he’s done so.]

    Case was originally filed in California state court, and Google removed (transferred) it to federal court.

    The case is based on a wacky California state law that makes “occupational discrimination” in commerce illegal, and that provides statutory damages of $4,000 / violation. Ergo, throw all your “it’s a private business so they can discriminate all they want” arguments away — plaintiffs here are going to try and take California’s nanny state law and culture and run it up Google’s nose.

    Downside: case is pending in San Jose federal court, with all decisions going to the Ninth Circuit, so I would not get my hopes up too much here. Parties have consented to proceed in front of US Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins, a former DOJ attorney and partner at Kirkland & Ellis.

    • “…plaintiffs here are going to try and take California’s nanny state law and culture and run it up Google’s nose.”

      I kinda hope the ram it up another orifice, personally.

      Does it live and die at at the 9th? Or is it a candidate for SCOTUS later?

      • As any decision by CTA9 on this case would likely be on its interpretation of California state law, the chance of SCOTUS review is essentially nil.

    • They’re damned if they do, or don’t, in this case. Win, and Google loses some of its permissions to restrict with whom they do business. Lose, and businesses & churches may once again refuse to do business with freaks & weirdos. Lose harder, and gun owners become state-approved targets for official oppression despite having clear and obvious constitutional protection, and we can set to settling this with said officials in a less-kind manner.

      Google wants to be a government anyway, so my money’s on the first one coming to pass. At the end of the day, they still have myriad ways to influence public opinion from the shadows and they still want to make money off us, so being forced to do business with us isn’t nearly as problematic for their schemes as they like to pretend.

Comments are closed.