A federal judge has rejected Parler’s effort to compel Amazon to continue providing hosting services through Amazon Web Services (AWS). The court’s decision, largely anticipated by those familiar with Parler’s legal strategy, determined that the lawsuit lacked justification, relying instead on “weak and inaccurate assumptions.”

In the ruling, documented in the Western Washington U.S. District Court, Judge Barbara Rothstein detailed the inadequacy of the evidence presented by Parler to support its accusations of antitrust collusion between Amazon and Twitter, and AWS’s alleged violation of its contractual obligations.

Regarding the antitrust allegations, Parler failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims, let alone demonstrate any collaborative breach of the Sherman Act.

Amazon clarified in its submission that AWS does not currently host Twitter, although future plans exist, and that firm protocols are in place to prevent the discussion of one client’s affairs with another. Judge Rothstein acknowledged this as sufficient refutation of Parler’s unsubstantiated assertion.

Concerning the breach of contract claim, Parler’s own arguments implicitly acknowledged a breach on its side. However, Parler contended that Amazon violated the agreement by not allowing a 30-day period for remediation, as outlined in Section 7.2(b)(i) of the customer service agreement (CSA). The judge determined this point was irrelevant:

The 30-day provision was not binding if Amazon chose not to invoke it; it is likely intended for less urgent situations. Consequently, the breach of contract argument was denied.

The judge also found no merit in Parler’s assertion that Amazon was driven by “political bias.”

Parler argued that it would experience “irreparable harm” without the restoration of AWS services, and Judge Rothstein did not question Parler’s assertion that it could potentially face “collapse” as a result. However, the judge noted that “Parler’s claims of irreparable harm are significantly weakened by its acknowledgement ‘that much of that harm could be resolved through financial compensation.’”

In essence, the issues could be remedied with money – meaning they were not truly irreparable.

On other legal and technical grounds, Judge Rothstein found that Parler failed to establish a valid case, or that Amazon presented a more compelling argument – for example, the potential damage to AWS’s reputation from being compelled to host violent or hateful material, potentially causing lasting harm.

It is important to understand that the judge’s ruling pertains solely to the request for an injunction to reinstate services while the case is ongoing, and does not address the overall merits of the case.

“To clarify, the Court is not dismissing Parler’s core underlying claims at this time” – meaning the court is not rejecting the substance of the claims, nor confirming their validity. However, Parler “has not adequately demonstrated” the necessary requirements to justify a legal intervention of this nature.

The case will continue to its next scheduled date, assuming Parler has not experienced the “collapse” it previously predicted.

Rothstein Order on Parler i… by TechCrunch