On January 21, 2021, Judge Rothstein ruled on the temporary restraining order request filed by the social media website
Parler against the
Amazon Web Services requesting that the Court order AWS to restore web service to Parler. The case came to light after supporters of then-President
Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol Building during the certification of the 2020 Presidential election. In making its decision to remove Parler from their server, Amazon argued that the platform refused to remove over 100 posts that contained violent threats against various individuals in violation of the AWS terms of service.
In asserting their claim, Parler raised three claims: (1) Conspiracy to restrain trade, (2) breach of contract, and (3) and tortious interference with business expectancy.
Parler, LLC. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. In asserting their claims, Parler argued that the termination of services by AWS was designed to reduce the competition of
Twitter. In rejecting their first claim, Judge Rothstein called Parler's evidence "dwindlingly slight and disputed by AWS."
She also noted Parler submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted either together intentionally, or whether they acted together at all, an essential component in such claims. While Parler claimed that evidence existed that AWS' actions were political retaliation since Twitter had similarly abusive language, according to Parler, the Judge pointed out that Twitter and Parler were not similarly situated because AWS did not provide web supporting services to Twitter.
Parler's second claim of breach of contract was similarly rejected. Parler's claim was centered on the belief that the contract with AWS entitled them to a 30 day cure period to remedy a material breach.
However, the agreement permitted AWS terminate their service immediately upon notice which Parler failed to dispute.
Parler's final claim was that AWS pulled their service at a moment that Parler was expecting to see an increase in users. However Judge Rothstein noted that Parler failed to allege the facts necessary to support their claim. "Most fatally," Judge Rothstein wrote, "it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS' actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means." Moreover, AWS denied any wrongdoing and asserted that it acted lawfully.