(Image via Getty)
Parler, the social media microblogging app for users to connect and share thoughts on interests ranging from sports to ethnic cleansing, received word over the weekend that Amazon Web Services would suspend hosting services effective last night. After scrambling to find an alternative host and failing to find any other web services provider keen on tying their brand name to the burgeoning home of the 1,000-character Reich, Parler did what any red-blooded American would do and filed a lawsuit.
In a complaint filed this morning in the Western District of Washington, Parler seeks a temporary restraining order to force Amazon to put the app back up as well as damages based on breach of contract, tortious interference, and, most astoundingly, violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act!
The contract claims are straightforward. AWS and Parler agreed to a contract that requires a 30-day notice to allow the other party to cure a material breach. Without reading the deal, it’s hard to say whether or not Parler has a point here. Technically, AWS has only suspended Parler and it’s likely that their argument will be that it has the right to do so for 30 days until satisfied that Parler has cured the breach. One hopes that AWS has lawyers who thought this through when drafting the boilerplate deal. Meanwhile, the tortious interference claim is based on the theory that AWS has muddied Parler’s contractual relationship with all the militia members it signed up.
It’s not clear what Parler’s endgame is here. AWS could give them another 30 days and then boot them and the company would be right back where it is now. GoDaddy isn’t going to change its mind about getting into bed with Parler based on a one-month reprieve.
But it’s the antitrust claim that wins all the prizes for novelty. Contractual claims were obvious, but this is truly a chef’s kiss level of creative lawyering:
32. Less than a month ago, AWS and Parler’s competitor, Twitter, entered into a multi-year deal. Late Friday evening, Twitter banned President Trump from using its platform, thereby driving enormous numbers of its users to Parler. Twenty-four hours later, AWS announced it would indefinitely suspend Parler’s account.
33. AWS’s reasons for doing so are not consistent with its treatment of Twitter, indicating a desire to harm Parler.
34. By suspending Parler’s account, AWS will remove from the market a surging player, severely restraining commerce in the microblogging services market.
Ten points to Slytherin.
Unpacking this claim, Parler alleges that Twitter had a trending Tweet threatening violence against Mike Pence over the weekend, and therefore argues that Amazon’s decision to punish Parler but not Twitter revealed a business interest in protecting the giant blue bird. From there, the complaint jumps to the conclusion that Twitter faced the mass defection of thousands of users to Parler and used its power to protect its preferred partner. It’s unclear why AWS would care which service someone used, since it was getting paid by both platforms, and shutting down Parler only risks users departing for platforms like Gab or Rumble that are not — as far as I can tell — AWS customers. So if this is a monopolistic effort, it would seem to be a bad one.
Yet somehow, in all of this, a platform based on giving voice to white grievance and Confederate nostalgia turning to a Sherman brother for deliverance rings out as that special dose of irony I personally needed to get me through another day of 2021 nonsense.
(Full complaint on the next page.)
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
