Parler Sues Amazon: Antitrust Lawsuit Explained

Following its removal from Amazon Web Services (AWS), Parler has initiated legal action against Amazon, submitting a complaint that alleges the tech giant acted due to political bias and engaged in an antitrust conspiracy designed to favor Twitter. However, the claims made by Parler, including allegations of a breach of contract, are contradicted by the evidence presented alongside the lawsuit.

The suit, filed today in the U.S. Western District Court, asserts that “AWS’s decision to terminate Parler’s account was seemingly motivated by political animosity and also intended to lessen competition within the microblogging services market, ultimately benefiting Twitter.”

Concerning the claim of “political animosity,” the reasoning put forth by Parler is difficult to assess, as the argument lacks supporting evidence within the lawsuit itself and is not revisited throughout the document.

The lawsuit suggests that Amazon demonstrates a greater tolerance for potentially objectionable content on Twitter compared to Parler, but this assertion is not adequately supported. For example, the suit references the trending hashtag “Hang Mike Pence” on Friday, January 8th, without acknowledging that a significant portion of the associated volume, as observed by Twitter users, consisted of individuals condemning the phrase as having been used by those involved in the Capitol riot two days earlier.

In contrast, a Parler post cited by Amazon explicitly states that “we need to start systematicly [sic] assasinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters,” and so on. As TechCrunch’s monitoring of Parler conversations indicates, this type of rhetoric was not an isolated incident.

The antitrust claim proposes a conspiracy by Amazon to safeguard and promote Twitter’s interests. The core argument is that, given Twitter’s status as a substantial AWS customer and Parler’s perceived threat to Twitter, Amazon sought to eliminate Parler.

This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons, the most apparent being that Parler was also an AWS customer at the time. If users were simply transitioning between platforms, why would Amazon have any concern, let alone one significant enough to warrant potentially unlawful and unethical intervention?

The lawsuit further alleges that Amazon leaked the email detailing Parler’s impending suspension to journalists before notifying Parler’s administrators. (The suit also claims Amazon “sought to defame” Parler, although defamation is not formally included as part of the legal complaint; Parler appears to be using this term in a broad sense.)

Finally, Parler contends that Amazon breached its contract by failing to provide the 30-day notice stipulated in the terms of service. An exception to this requirement exists if a “material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days” following notification. As Parler explains:

However, the email attached as evidence to the lawsuit—specifically, exhibit A—clearly indicates that the issues had been ongoing for a longer duration (emphasis added):

The full text of the letter is available for review, but it is evident that Amazon’s decision was not based solely on a few days of violations.

Parler is requesting a Temporary Restraining Order to reinstate its access to AWS while the case proceeds, and seeks to have damages determined at trial.

Update: Amazon has issued the following statement in response to the lawsuit:

You can read the full complaint below.

Parler v Amazon by TechCrunch