Court dismisses Parler’s request to return to AWS on patriot base

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against conservative social network Parler to force Amazon to host its services on AWS. As most would imagine from Parler’s poor legal allegations, the court ruled that the proceedings were merely “blurred and false speculation” and had no reason to justify the intervention.

In a proceeding filed in the District Court for the Western Federal District of Washington, Judge Barbara Rothstein alleges that Parler’s Amazon and Twitter have colluded anti-trust acts and AWS has broken the contract. Explained how poor the material supporting the was.

Parler couldn’t offer anything about antitrust, nor did Parler conspire against Sherman Act.

The evidence submitted to support the allegations is weak, and AWS has disputed it. Importantly, Parler has not provided evidence that AWS and Twitter have acted together intentionally or in the first place due to trading restrictions.

【slightly】

In fact, Parler is doing nothing more than raising concerns that Twitter is receiving incentives from AWS.

Amazon explained that AWS doesn’t even host Twitter, and although it has plans, it has strict rules for clients that prevent them from talking to other clients. That’s enough to doubt Parler’s shallow claims, Rothstein said.

Regarding the contract breach, Parler effectively admitted in this proceeding that he had breached the contract, but he tried to fix the problem set forth in Section 7.2 (b) (i) of the Customer Service Contract. Amazon claims to have broken the terms of the deal to give it a day’s grace. But it was irrelevant in the first place.

Parler was unaware, let alone argued, in Section 7.2 (b) (ii) that followed immediately that AWS would terminate the contract “immediately after notification” and allow it to be amended. ..

So the 30-day grace doesn’t apply if Amazon doesn’t want it. This clause appears to relate to non-urgent events. Allegations of contract breach were denied.

Parler’s claim that “Amazon was motivated by political hostility” also doesn’t make sense, the judge said.

Parler does not provide the basic facts to support some elements of this claim. Most deadly, as I’ve mentioned above, it raises inadequate speculation that AWS’s actions are due to improper purpose or unjustified means.

【slightly】

On the contrary, the evidence currently available suggests that AWS’s termination of the customer support contract is the result of responding to Parler’s serious breach.

Parler also claims that if AWS services aren’t restored, he will suffer “irreparable damage,” and in fact Rothstein could face Parler’disappearance’as a result of a series of events. There is no reason to deny the company’s claim that it is sexual. “Parler’s allegations of irreparable damage have been significantly weakened by Parler’s admission that’most of the damage is financially indemnible’,” he said.

In other words, it can be solved with money, which means that it is not “irreparable”.

On other legal and technical aspects, Rothstein said Parler’s claim was unfounded and Amazon’s claim was much stronger. For example, being forced to host violent and hateful content can damage AWS’s reputation and perhaps even irreparable.

Also important in this type of proceeding is that the judge does not make a ruling based on the value of the entire proceeding, but only on the allegations and evidence presented in the injunction to restore service.

“To be clear, the court has not dismissed Parler’s substantive basic allegations at this point.” In other words, this does not deny the content of the claim or assume that it is substantive. But Parler was “far from” presenting what was needed to justify this type of legal intervention.

The proceedings will continue on the next date, unless Parler is facing the “disappearance” he warned at that time.