Parler’s attempt to return to Amazon Web Services rejected by judge

A federal judge today dismissed Parler’s petition for a preliminary injunction against Amazon Web Services (AWS), scuttling the social network’s attempt to quickly revert to Amazon’s web hosting platform.

Speak, which touts itself as a conservative alternative to Twitter, had sought a court order requiring Amazon to reinstate its web hosting service pending a full trial. But “Speaking has failed … to demonstrate, as it should be, that he has raised serious questions about the merits of his assertions”, and he has only strongly, or that interest public lies in granting the injunction, ”said Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Talking could still prevail in this case, but it will not be reinstated in Amazon’s service in the meantime. Parler accused Amazon of conspiracy to restrict trade, in violation of Sherman Law; breach of contract; and tort interference with business expectations.

“AWS disputes all three allegations, claiming that it was Parler, and not AWS, that violated the terms of the parties’ agreement, and in particular the AWS Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits illegal use. , harmful or offensive ‘AWS services,’ Rothstein wrote.

Amazon has warned Talking repeatedly

Amazon discontinued Parler’s web hosting service on January 10, saying that “we cannot provide services to a customer who is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others. “. Talking has shown that it “cannot meet our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety,” Amazon also said.

Speak sued Amazon on January 11. Subsequently, Amazon said in a court filing that it warned Speak of over 100 violent threats before it disconnected its service. As we wrote in the previous coverage, the articles Amazon reported to Speak included calls to “kill a specific transgender person; actively wishing for a race war and the murder of black and Jewish people; and killing several activists and politicians such as Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.) and former President Barack Obama. “

Amazon’s court record said:

This business is not about suppressing speech or stifling points of view. This is not a conspiracy to restrict trade. Instead, this case concerns Parler’s demonstrated reluctance and inability to remove Amazon Web Services content from servers that threatens public safety, for example by inciting and planning rape, torture and murder. public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS customer agreements or for compelling AWS to host content of this nature. AWS repeatedly notified Parler that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to resolve the issue, only to determine that Parler was both reluctant and unable to do so. AWS has suspended the Talk as a Last Resort account to prevent further access to this content, including plans of violence to disrupt the impending presidential transition.

Parler’s claims are weak, judge says

Rothstein’s rejection of Parler’s request stated that “Although Parler has not yet had an opportunity to conduct a discovery, the evidence [Sherman Act] The claim is both less light and contested by AWS. Importantly, Parler has presented no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally – or even at all – to restrict commerce. “

Parler claimed that “by removing the hold on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite identical user behavior on both sites, AWS reveals that its reasons expressed for suspending Parler’s account are just a pretext.” But Rothstein pointed out that “Talking and Twitter are not in the same situation because AWS does not provide online hosting services to Twitter.”

Parler’s breach of contract allegation is equally weak, Rothstein wrote. Parler did not deny that it violated its agreement with Amazon upon termination of the service, and the customer agreement “gives AWS the right to suspend or terminate, immediately upon notification, in the event of a violation by Parler,” A writes Rothstein.

Regarding the tort interference allegation, “Parler did not allege basic facts that would support several elements of this allegation” and “did not raise more than the slightest speculation that AWS actions were taken. for an improper purpose or means, ”the judge wrote.

If Amazon were forced to reestablish Talk Now services, before Parler rolled out a more effective moderation system, the result would be “continuing to publish the kind of abusive and violent content that caused AWS to shut down Talk in the first place. “, indicates the judgment. . He continued:

The Court explicitly rejects any suggestion that the balance of action or the public interest favors AWS’s obligation to host the type of abusive and violent content at issue in this case, especially in light of the recent riots on Capitol Hill. American. This event was a tragic reminder that inflammatory rhetoric can – faster and easier than many of us would have hoped – turn a legal protest into a violent insurgency.

Parler.com is currently live as a static webpage with several articles from conservative figures like Sean Hannity and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), As well as a note on “technical difficulties.”