Parler’s attempt to get back at Amazon Web Services rejected by judge


in great shape / The Amazon Web Services (AWS) logo was displayed during the fourth edition of the Viva Technology Show at the Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on May 17, 2019 in Paris, France.

A federal judge today rejected Parler’s motion for an initial injunction against Amazon Web Services (AWS), prompting the social network’s effort to quickly return to Amazon’s web-hosting platform.

Parler, offering itself as a conservative alternative to Twitter, had an order from the court requiring Amazon to suspend its web-hosting service pending a full trial. But “Parler has fallen far short … in terms of performance, as it should be, that has raised serious questions over the merits of its claims,” ​​and has failed to prove that “the balance of equity tips in its In favor, “let alone vigorous, or that public interest lies in granting injunction,” said Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Parler may still prevail in the case, but in the meantime it will not be restored to Amazon’s service. Parler accused Amazon of conspiracy to ban trade in violation of the Sherman Act; breach of contract; And torture interference with trade expectancy.

“AWS disputes all three claims, stating that it is Parler, not AWS, which has violated the terms of the parties ‘agreement, and in particular AWS’s Acceptable Use Policy, which provides for the’ illegal, harmful, Or abusive ‘prohibits use, “Rothstein wrote.

Amazon repeatedly warns Peller

Amazon cut Parler’s web-hosting service on January 10, stating that “we cannot provide services to a customer who can effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others Is unable to. ” Parler has shown that it “cannot comply with our terms of service and poses very real risks to public safety,” Amazon also said.

Parler filed a lawsuit against Amazon on 11 January. Subsequently, Amgen filed in court that he issued a warning to Peller about more than 100 violent threats before discontinuing his service. As we wrote in previous coverage, the posts Amazon reported to Parler included “killing a specific transgender person; actively waging a race war and murdering Black and Jewish people; and many more like Stacey Ebers, Rape The assassination of activists and politicians included.; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.), and former President Barack Obama. “

Amazon’s court said:

This case is not about the point of view of speech or repression. This is not about conspiracy to rein in business. Rather, the case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove Amazon Web Services content from servers that threaten public safety, such as rape, torture, and planning for the murder of designated public officials and private citizens. AWS has no legal basis in customer agreements or otherwise forcing AWS to host content of this nature. AWS repeatedly informed the parlor that its contents violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to rectify the problem, only to determine that Parler was both reluctant and Was unable to do so. The AWS suspended Parler’s account as final material to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the imminent presidential transition.

Parler’s claims are weak, judge finds

Rothstein denied Parler’s motion, stating that “while Parler has not yet had the opportunity to conduct the search, it supports the evidence it has presented [Sherman Act] The claim is both moderately minor, and disputed by AWS. Crucially, Parler has presented no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted intentionally – or even in business restraint.

Parler claimed that “by pulling the plug on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite similar conduct by users on both sites, AWS revealed that there are express reasons for suspending Parler’s account but there are excuses.” But Rothstein pointed out that “Parler and Twitter are not equally situated, because AWS does not provide online hosting services to Twitter.”

Parler’s claim of breach of contract is similarly weak, Rothstein wrote. Parler has not ruled out that it was in breach of its agreement with Amazon at the time of termination of the service, and the Customer Agreement “authorizes AWS to either suspend or terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler is violated, “” Rothstein wrote.

On the tortious interference claim, “the parlor has failed to allege the basic facts that would support many elements of this claim” and “has failed to infer more than the actions of the AWS by objective or improper means,” “The judge wrote.

If Amazon was forced to re-implement Parler’s services before Parler implemented a more effective moderation system, the result would be “the constant posting of abusive, violent content, which caused AWS to put Parler in the first place Closed on, ”the ruling said. . It continued:

The Court has categorically rejected any suggestion that the balance of equity or public interest is obliged to AWS to host such abusive, violent material in this case, especially in the light of recent riots in the US Capitol. Is favored The incident was a sad reminder that inflammatory rhetoric can occur more quickly and easily, while many of us have hoped that a legal protest will be turned into a violent rebellion.

Parler.com is currently online as a static webpage with several posts from conservative figures like Sean Hannity and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), With a note about “technical difficulties”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.