Google Search Isn’t a “Common Carrier” (DUH)–Ohio v. Google

August 19, 2025 · by · in Content Regulation, Search Engines

State AGs undertake some of the stupidest and most MAGAlicious stunts, a form of vacuous theater to own the libs rather than better the lives of their constituents. In this case, Ohio AG Yost sued Google, claiming that Google Search is a “common carrier.” The lawsuit’s goal is to override Google’s editorial discretion over its search results. In MAGAland, the successful imposition of common carriage would seemingly elevate conservative voices by overwriting Google’s perceived leftist bias. In practice, common carriage would make Google Search even more useless than it currently is (its relevancy has already slipped so much from its halcyon days), making it impossible to provide the results searchers want and driving the functionality into the ground. #MAGA indeed.

The court previously denied Google’s motion to dismiss–a head-scratching and troubling ruling. Now, after three additional years of pointless litigation, on summary judgment, the court easily dismisses Yost’s lawsuit in a short opinion.

[Note: SRP = search results page.]

First, Google Search doesn’t “carriage” anything:

Google Search plainly does not transport people. And the evidence shows it does not transport products for others.

Assuming arguendo a search result constitutes property or a product, Google Search creates its own product when it responds to a user’s inquiry. That “product” is a SRP, which is compiled anew by Google Search for each user from information that Google has mined, organized, and developed….

Moving people or the product of others is the sine qua non of a common carrier….

The State of Ohio argues Google Search carries information for others. But that carriage is done by an ISP, not Google Search—a fact the State concedes. A user’s query arrives at Google Search via an ISP, and once Google Search creates a SRP, it relays that SRP to an ISP and the ISP then delivers the SRP to the user. It is undisputed that, without an ISP, Google Search could not deliver any search results in response to a user’s inquiry.

(For telecom geeks, this is just a redux of the telecom stack analogy. Lower levels of the stack “move” data for higher levels, which is why the lower levels could possibly be common carriers and the higher levels are the ones being carried).

Second, Google Search doesn’t serve searchers indifferently:

Google exercises judgments about crawling, indexing, and ranking webpages. It does not guarantee that all or certain webpages will be crawled. When a user makes a query, Google creates and returnsaunique SRP. What that SRP looks like and what its contents are depend on a range of factors. These are factors Google controls and balances.

The State of Ohio argues that the relevant inquiry is not whether Google makes individualized decisions when it returns a SRP, but rather that it returns a SRP to any member of the public who makes a query. But Google does not hold itself out as carrying indifferently. Rather, Google proclaims it differentiates in what it delivers search results….

Google at each stage of the process selects what information users will and will not see. Google crawls the web, indexes webpages, and then selects which results to include in a SRP. So even if Google were transporting a product of “information,” that product would be one Google itself has designed.

This conclusion is so simple and obvious…you could have asked an 8 year old whether a search engine carries anything and gotten a better explanation than Yost’s arguments. This lawsuit was a complete waste of everyone’s time and the taxpayer’s money, driven by bogus assumptions and designed to air grievance politics. And yet, of course Yost will appeal this decision; and his misuse of his enforcement discretion, with the goal of disserving his constituents, won’t hurt him in any future elections. Peak Ohio.

[For more on how whacked Ohio is, including some unflattering comments about Yost, read David Pepper’s Laboratories of Autocracy book.]

This opinion doesn’t address the First Amendment problems with Yost’s common carriage argument–no need given how the case convincingly failed on other grounds–even though the judge wasn’t persuaded on the motion to dismiss despite its obvious applicability.

Just in case you’re wondering, the judge issuing this opinion previously was the Republican Party chair for his county, i.e., probably not a woke lib. This is the same judge who bent over backwards to treat Yost’s arguments as credible on the motion to dismiss ruling.

While this particular censorship effort has failed this time, no doubt that partisan censors are hatching new plans to control keyword searches, Generative AI, and every other information source that might hold them accountable or challenge their power. 📉

Case Citation: State ex rel Yost v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-CV-1-06-0274 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas August 15, 2025).

Prior Blog Posts on Common Carriage