An Amazon spokesperson says the complaint is unqualified and was justified in ending the site’s hosting service. Instead of amending his federal lawsuit against Amazon Web Services, Parler is trying a different course after a judge terminated his request for an injunction. It dropped that suit and filed a new lawsuit in Washington state court – this time alleging a violation of her rights as a consumer.
The legal battle ensued after the suspension of Parler’s web hosting service in the US, which followed a violent attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, an incident that has been widely coordinated on social media. AWS stated that nearly a hundred instances of inciting or encouraging violence were marked and its service terminated because Parler did not have policies or procedures to moderate such content.
The next day after his site went dark, Parler claimed the real reason for its closure, stating that AWS was conspiring with Twitter to placate potential rivals in the social media space and sought an injunction that would allow the company to Will stop the service from ending America.
District Judge Barbara Rothstein rejected the motion, stating that the parlor did not appear likely to execute its claims and dismissed any suggestion that the public interest required AWS This is attributed to the fact that some users of Parler are engaged in the record.
The parlor initially intended to amend its complaint, but the company chose instead to move the fight to state consumer court – focusing the bulk of its suit on the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Its new suite begins by taking into account the size and market power of AWS and its parent company, specifically mentioning that Amazon’s roughly $ 1.7 trillion valuation is “about Russia’s annual GDP” and AWS has Global cloud services constitute about a third of the business.
In the complaint, lawyer Angelo Calof writes, “When these companies are large, it is easy to be a crook.” Many start-up companies that have become a threat to Amazon and AWS have felt their wrath. Victim of Amazon’s attempts to destroy an up-and-coming technology company through deceitful, slanderous, antidote, antagonistic, and bad-faith conduct.
Parler claims that it had a positive relationship with AWS and the company did not share any major concerns about the moderation of content during the first two years. “In fact, two days before the termination of the termination, AWS assured Palr that it was ‘fine’ as problematic material,” Call off writes. “The parlor relies on this representation and similar representation from AWS, for the decline of its own business.”
The social site insists that nothing has changed in its moderation processes, but says that AWS has “signed a major new contract” with Twitter since its closure. After being booted from Twitter by then President Donald Trump, the parlor expected him to visit its site and bring millions of followers with him.
The parlor alleged that it would have become “a major threat to Twitter in the microblogging market” and that’s why AWS pulled the plug. The company also claims that AWS is “secretly selling Parler user data.”
The complaint also describes how Parler works with major social media sites and vice versa. It argues that its users are less likely to find themselves in echo chambers because it “does not use artificial intelligence” to encourage its users to see and interact with like-minded people.
“According to the complaint, there is no group and a verified account is required to send a direct message. (This verification is not a blue check system for high-profile users like Twitter. It is an identity confirmation that a selfie Needs to upload and driving license or other ID.)
It also runs through a laundry list of instances of violent content on Twitter and Facebook that were ignored and claimed that there is no evidence that its site played a role in coordinating the January 6 attack.
Parler is alleging multiple violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and argues that the AWS customer contract is a contract of adhesion, take it or leave it “wrong, misleading, and unintentionally benefit AWS and its customers.” Causes harm
“Parler says the contract is designed in a way that forces its customers to break” en masse “, which gives AWS the ability to terminate any agreement” for a reason ” is.
Other claims on the site include breach of contract, ordinance violations of Seattle’s fair contract practices, and defamation – claiming that AWS (or one of its employees) leaked the termination letter to Buzzfeed knowing that within Were the only reason.
Here is Amazon’s statement in response to the complaint, which is given below: “There is no merit to these claims. AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we respect Parler’s authority So that he himself can determine what material he will allow.
However, as the evidence in Parler’s federal lawsuit suggests, it was clear that Parler had important content that encouraged and incited violence against others, which is a violation of our Terms of Service. In addition, parlors were unable to quickly identify and remove this material, which combined with an increase in this type of dangerously violent content suspended their services. “