Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.) | Report on politicized content moderation at Google Inc. (Alphabet Inc.)

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
9
Resolution details
Company ticker
GOOGL
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that Alphabet conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary and confidential information, analyzing the benefits, costs, and legal, reputational, competitive, and other relevant risks of the use of diagnostic tools created by politicized corporate partners.
Whereas clause
Corporate charitable partnerships have a direct and significant impact on both brand value and market value. When companies rely on organizations engaged in highly controversial activities for such guidance, they risk alienating customers, employees, and shareholders, and expose themselves to significant reputational, legal, and competitive risks. These risks can materially affect Alphabet’s brand and market value. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a prime example. While historically known for legal victories against hate groups, the SPLC now maintains a list1 of “hate groups” that inaccurately equates mainstream conservatives and Christians, including parental rights organizations, mainstream Catholics,2 Alliance Defending Freedom, Dr. Ben Carson, and Franklin Graham with extremists. The SPLC’s use of vague, persistently undefined terms like “hate” to vet nonprofits is of deep concern to shareholders, as rhetoric around “hate” generates disturbing real-world consequences, including the 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council and, more recently, the assassination3 of Charlie Kirk, whose organization, Turning Point USA, the SPLC had previously described as hateful. In both cases, rhetoric surrounding vague terms such as “hate” (and in the case of the Family Research Council, the SPLC’s “hate map” was explicitly mentioned4) was cited as a factor in these acts of violence. Despite condemning these attacks, the SPLC has not removed the targeted organizations from the hate map. The SPLC’s recent lambasting of Turning Point USA5 and Focus on the Family6 as “hate groups” has intensified criticism,7 including from federal lawmakers,8 that it targets conservative and Christian groups for their beliefs. Alphabet has been publicly identified as working with the SPLC, including9 on YouTube’s “hate speech” policies. The risks10 of controversial partnerships skewing such policies are only increasing for Alphabet. A recent House Judiciary report11 indicated Alphabet’s participation in political censorship under the previous administration, along with its use of “fact-checking partners… to support [content] moderation.” Shareholders deserve to know that Alphabet’s moderation decisions are being made in keeping with its responsibility to political neutrality. Continued support for the SPLC may be perceived as endorsement of its controversial practices, potentially harming Alphabet’s brand and market value. Alphabet is one of the most valuable brands in the world, with its brand value estimated12 at $900 billion, comprising a significant portion13 of its almost $3 trillion market capitalization. The reputational brand risk associated with such partnerships is a significant concern for shareholders. Many companies have refocused their policies to rely on internal vetting systems to better achieve political neutrality, fulfill fiduciary duty, and mitigate the reputational risk of politicized policies. It is time for Alphabet to do the same. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/ https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/the-fbis-targeting-radical-traditional-catholics-bodes-ill https://abcnews.go.com/US/tyler-robinson-set-face-formal-charges-shooting-death/story?id=125614396 https://www.frc.org/frcactionpressreleasestemplate/chick-fil-a-donates-to-splc-anti-christian-group-linked-to-shooter-that stormed-family-research-council#gsc.tab=0 https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/turning-point-usa-case-study-hard-right-2024/ https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/focus-family/ https://www.wsj.com/opinion/false-charges-of-hate-encourage-violence-d5e07919 https://mcusercontent.com/000045cecbf68668f1c6603a1/files/8deaa23b-77f1-5c2d-fe28-861d7dfdf795/ Roy_Select_Committee_Letter_v2_2_.pdf https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/27/google-youtube-southern-poverty-law-center-censorship/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377310-conservatives-cry-foul-over-controversial-groups-role-in-youtube-moderation/ https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-09-23-letter-to hjc.pdf https://www.campaignlive.com/article/apple-leads-us-dominates-kantars-top-100-global-brands/1918351 https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.