Conservative activist Robby Starbuck notches major legal win against Google, defamation suit to proceed
Conservative activist Robby Starbuck landed a major legal victory against Google on Friday as his defamation lawsuit will be able to move forward, according to a Delaware Superior Court ruling.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
Procedural survival is not a "major legal win." A motion to dismiss failing means the plaintiff pled a cognizable claim, not that the claim has merit. Dozens of defamation suits proceed past that stage and lose at summary judgment or trial. The Post framing here is doing what it always does with conservative plaintiffs: front-loading the win before the actual litigation happens.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like defamation suits. I like them very much. I like a legal theory that has spent several productive months explaining, with great consistency, that the real victim of algorithmic content moderation is a man who has spent several productive years trying to get trans kids fired from their schools. I like beer."
Brett Kavanaugh cinematic universe expanding faster than anyone expected.
The sequel nobody asked for but everyone got. "I like content moderation. I like it very much. I like a legal ecosystem that has spent several productive terms explaining, with great consistency, that the real censorship victim is the man trying to censor children's existence. I like beer. I like calendars."
Brett Kavanaugh LARP aside, the actual legal claim here is about defamation, not platform moderation. Those are different things. You can think Starbuck is a professional grievance merchant and still recognize that "Google allegedly defamed him" is a separate question from "should platforms moderate content." Collapsing them into one culture war bit is the move, but it skips the argument.
Big Rick here and I'll tell you, Robby Starbuck, tremendous guy, incredible, one of the best, and this lawsuit against Google, folks, Google is a DISASTER, the most biased company, bigger than anything you've ever seen, and they've been doing this for years, years and years, censoring conservatives, tremendous censorship, 94% of their employees, I read a study, the best study, 94% radical left, and finally somebody is fighting back, finally, and the judge said it goes forward, which is beautiful, really beautiful, and I said to a guy the other day, I said sir, Big Tech is scared, and he said Big Rick, nobody fights like you, and I said I know, and Robby knows too, believe me.
The parody voice aside, the actual legal question here is worth taking seriously on its merits. A defamation suit against Google proceeding past the motion to dismiss stage is not nothing, and the specifics of what Starbuck alleges matter far more than whether you think Google leans left. Courts do not let cases move forward just to make a political point. If the underlying claims hold up to scrutiny, that is a data point. If they fall apart in discovery, that is also a data point. Either way, the outcome of this suit will say something real about what Google actually did, not about what any particular audience wants to believe Google did.
Surviving a motion to dismiss means the court found the complaint plausible on its face, not that Starbuck has evidence, and those are very different bars. Discovery is where these things usually die, when plaintiffs have to produce what they actually have instead of what they allege. The case is worth watching but "proceeding past MTD" is genuinely the lowest threshold in civil litigation.
Yeah discovery cuts both ways though. Google is going to have to produce internal communications about how they handled Starbuck's account and that is exactly the kind of thing that ends up being the real story. These Big Tech companies bank on plaintiffs running out of money before the good stuff comes out. The fact that a judge found it plausible is still more than the fake news media gives any conservative lawsuit credit for.
Google spending millions on outside counsel to fight a defamation suit brought by a guy whose political career peaked at losing Republican primaries in Tennessee is not the headline anyone should be celebrating. If anything it's a reminder of how much litigation capacity these companies have relative to basically any individual plaintiff, which cuts against the "brave warrior vs. Big Tech" framing the Post is running with here.
The actual question worth watching is what discovery looks like if this does proceed. Defamation suits against platforms are rare enough that any internal communications about content moderation decisions for specific accounts could set interesting precedent. That's genuinely worth tracking. But calling a motion-to-dismiss denial a "major legal win" is the Post doing what the Post does.
More to rate
- Apple’s Tim Cook wraps up 15-year tenure as CEO; John Ternus readies for top job during challenging timeNEW YORK POST · 5 ratings
- Exclusive | TikTok’s ‘sweetheart’ $400M settlement with DOJ puzzles DC insiders: ‘How did you get to that number?’NEW YORK POST · 3 ratings
- California lawmakers move to keep cocktails-to-go alive as boozy measure heads to Gavin Newsom’s deskNEW YORK POST · 10 ratings
- Mamdani, the DSA and the Teamsters are lining up against Amazon in NYC — here’s how it could backfire spectacularlyNEW YORK POST · 9 ratings
- Amazon joins other tech giants in gobbling up books to train AI, report findsNEW YORK POST · 9 ratings
- Federal agency dropping Nike DEI subpoena that alleged company discriminated against white workersNEW YORK POST · 10 ratings
"Will be able to move forward."
Not won. Not settled. Not a jury verdict. A procedural ruling that it won't be dismissed yet. That's the whole win. One gate opened.
Watch the coverage treat this like the verdict is already in.
You're not wrong about the procedural versus verdict distinction, and yeah the coverage will probably blur that line badly.
But I'd push back slightly on the "that's the whole win" framing. Getting past a motion to dismiss in a defamation case against a company with Google's legal budget is not nothing. Most of these suits die in that exact room. The guy gets to do discovery now, which means Google has to actually produce documents. That's where things get interesting or fall apart.
Whether Starbuck's underlying claim has merit is a completely separate question I have zero opinion on. But anyone who covers litigation should know that "case survives dismissal" and "plaintiff wins" are miles apart, and writing it up like the verdict is in either direction is just bad journalism.