FTC Chair warns Google about Gmail’s “partisan” spam filter

Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission’s appointment, recently expressed concern that “Alphabet’s Gmail management is designed to have a partisan effect.”

In a letter to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Ferguson pointed to a recent New York Post story (Target’s victory grievance (Consulting and PR Firm in conjunction with the Republican National Committee and Elon Musk’s X) that Gmail links to the sharing platform without a shared fundraiser.

“My understanding from recent reports is that Gmail’s spam filters routinely block those messages from reaching consumers when they come from Republican senders, but not similar messages sent by Democrats,” writes Ferguson.

He warned the Alphabet that Gmail’s filters “can be harmful to American consumers if they do not prevent Americans from receiving anticipated speeches or appear appropriate,” and that this could violate the FTC Act’s ban on unfair or deceptive trade practices, which could “contribute to FTC investigations and potential enforcement measures.”

In response, a Google spokesperson told Axios that Gmail’s spam filter “seeing various objective signals, marking certain emails as spam, or whether a particular ad agency is sending a large number of emails that are often marked as spam,” and the company told Axios that it “applies the approach equally to all senders.”

The spokesman also said, “I look forward to reviewing this letter and enchanting it constructively and fascinatingly.”

Conservatives often complain that they are being censored or otherwise unfairly treated by digital platforms, including Gmail. In 2023, the Federal Election Commission dismissed a complaint from Republicans over Gmail’s spam filter, and the federal court dismissed an RNC lawsuit with similar complaints. (It appears that the RNC is reviving the lawsuit.)

Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked the FTC’s investigation into left-leaning group media issues regarding investigations into X’s anti-Semitic content, describing the investigation as an “act of retaliation.”