A federal judge has denied an attempt by the conservative social network Parler to force Amazon to host it on AWS. As expected by most of those who read Parler’s ramshackle legal arguments, the court found nothing in the lawsuit that could warrant intervention, only “weak and factually inaccurate speculation.”
In the order, filed in U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Judge Barbara Rothstein explained how Little Talker had effectively supported his claims that Amazon and Twitter were engaged in antitrust collusion and that ‘AWS had broken its contract.
On the antitrust issue, Parler was far from demonstrating anything, let alone collusion in violation of the Sherman Act.
The evidence it has submitted in support of the claim is both shrinking and disputed by AWS. Importantly, Parler has provided no evidence that AWS and Twitter have acted together intentionally – or even at all – to restrict commerce.
… Indeed, Parler did not do more than raise the specter of preferential treatment of Twitter by AWS.
Amazon had explained in its file that not only does AWS not even host Twitter yet, although there are plans to do so, but there are strict rules in place to prevent chatting from one customer to another. This was more than enough to challenge Parler’s weak claim, Rothstein noted.
In the event of breach of contract, Parler had during his argument essentially admitted the breach of contract on his side, but said that Amazon had broken its end of the bargain by not giving it 30 days to resolve the issue as stipulated in client service. agreement (CSA) in section 7.2 (b) (i). Turns out it doesn’t even matter:
Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2 (b) (ii) – the provision immediately following – authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without providing any remedy …
So the 30 day deal was never in play if Amazon didn’t want it; we imagine that the clause concerns less immediately the causes of action. Breach of contract argument rejected.
Parler’s claim that Amazon was “motivated by political animosity” also does not hold water, the judge said.
Parler did not allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim. More fatally, as discussed above, it did not raise more than the slightest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or through improper means … on the contrary, the evidence at this point suggest that AWS’s termination of the CSA was in response to Parler’s material violation.
The company also argued that it would suffer “irreparable harm” if AWS services were not restored, and in fact Rothstein had no reason to doubt Parler’s claims that it could be “shut down” due to of these circumstances. Except that “Parler’s claims to irreparable harm are considerably lessened by its admission that“ a large part of this harm would be compensable by damages ”.”
In other words, the money would fix the problem – which means it’s not exactly irreparable.
Regarding other legal and technical aspects, Rothstein finds that Parler doesn’t make any arguments or that Amazon’s case is much stronger – for example, being forced to host violent and hateful content would damage reputation. AWS, perhaps even beyond repair.
As is important to note in cases like this, the judge does not rule on the merits of the case as a whole, but only on the arguments and evidence presented in the application for an injunction to restore the grounds. services as the case progresses.
“To be clear, the court is not rejecting Parler’s underlying substantive claims at this time” – that is, it does not reject the substance of the claims, nor does it assert that they have the bottom. But Parler “failed” to demonstrate what he needed to justify judicial intervention of this type.
The case will pass to its next date, if indeed Parler did not face the “extinction” of which he had then warned.
Rothstein Order on Parler i… by TechCrunch