Posted on 01/11/2021 9:42:24 AM PST by Red Badger
BREAKING: Parler sues Amazon for antitrust violation, breach of contract and unlawful business interference. Asks federal judge to order Amazon to reinstate the platform
— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) January 11, 2021
Parler is suing Amazon for antitrust violation only a day after Amazon disappeared the app from the internet.
That IS the value of the ToS: to ensure they can drop you at any time for any reason and it'll be covered by some portion of the ToS. The ToS is what gives Amazon (and everyone else, because all the major providers have mile long Terms of Service agreements) the legal cover to drop anyone they like. No matter who you are or what you're doing, they can find any number of ways you're violating the Terms of Service. As the ToS is part of your contract with Amazon, your being dropped is covered right there in the contract between you.
Further, as a business, they ought to be free to choose to not do business with anyone at any time, regardless of the ToS. The cake baking case was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned. Businesses have the right to refuse service. Even if they're refusing that service to people we like.
“Further, as a business, they ought to be free to choose to not do business with anyone at any time, regardless of the ToS.”
Then get off the US Government Internet.
This would be like running a toll freeway on behalf of the US Government but then saying Trump stickers cannot be on the freeway.
“he ToS is what gives Amazon (and everyone else, because all the major providers have mile long Terms of Service agreements) the legal cover to drop anyone they like.”
False. Why would anyone agree to sign a contract where the person fulfilling the contract has no obligation to perform?
“Further, as a business, they ought to be free to choose to not do business with anyone at any time, regardless of the ToS.”
Wrong again. When you sign a contract, you are NOT free to unilaterally change it. What lunacy makes you think a business has the right to quit performing a service they agreed to provide, causing serious financial loss to the other party?
I’ll buy a car from you and agree to pay you $1,000 a month for 10 months. After I take possession, I’ll exercise my right as a free person to refuse further payment. After all, I’ll just choose to end my business dealings with you. What right to complain do you have, since you believe that is OK?
The only US government Internet is the series of secure networks connecting US government facilities. The Internet you and I are using is not owned - nor was it ever owned - by the US government. It began as a series of connections between various universities and research facilities and grew into a much larger network through commercial investment.
"This would be like running a toll freeway on behalf of the US Government but then saying Trump stickers cannot be on the freeway.
There is no analogy that makes sense where Amazon AWS is a "highway". You could call it a billboard where you can put up signage. You can call it a TV station that allows people to put up their own TV shows. But in no way is AWS a "highway". And in no way is AWS being run "on behalf of the US government". That's... nonsensical.
First, does anyone actually read all the documentation from Amazon? Or Microsoft? Second, Amazon has a duty to perform as described in their SLA documentation. However, they also have requirements spelled out in the AWS Service Terms and the AWS Customer Agreement and the AWS Acceptable Use Policy, among others (about a half dozen others, but most stuff is covered in those three documents).
Have you actually read those? I have. Read through them and tell me again Amazon doesn't have the contractual right to boot people off their service for any number of reasons.
"Wrong again. When you sign a contract, you are NOT free to unilaterally change it. What lunacy makes you think a business has the right to quit performing a service they agreed to provide, causing serious financial loss to the other party?"
Actually, they CAN change the Service Terms and the Acceptable Use Policy and the Customer Agreement. It says so right there in their documentation that they can change them. And your contract with AWS says you'll abide by all of those requirements; regardless of changes. So yes, Amazon IS free to unilaterally change it. Every single hosting provider in existence has this language in their documentation and every single one regularly updates them. And every customer of theirs lives under the new terms.
This is how the real world works. Life is not an episode of Law and Order.
For example, from the AWS Customer Agreement Section 12:
"We may modify this Agreement (including any Policies) at any time by posting a revised version on the AWS Site or by otherwise notifying you in accordance with Section 13.10; provided, however, that we will provide at least 90 days’ advance notice in accordance with Section 13.10 for adverse changes to any Service Level Agreement. Subject to the 90 day advance notice requirement with respect to adverse changes to Service Level Agreements, the modified terms will become effective upon posting or, if we notify you by email, as stated in the email message. By continuing to use the Service Offerings after the effective date of any modifications to this Agreement, you agree to be bound by the modified terms. It is your responsibility to check the AWS Site regularly for modifications to this Agreement. We last modified this Agreement on the date listed at the end of this Agreement.
Read the AUP. They can boot anyone who uses AWS to host content that's "defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable". That can literally be anything. It is what Amazon says it is. Don't like it? Don't do business with them.
On the other hand, let's say I rent a hotel room from you. Once inside, I break all the windows out, throw all the furniture out the window, and start screaming obscenities at everyone walking by.
In your world, since I paid for my room, I'm good to go until 10am checkout.
Anti trust, not contract violation.
Parler has no standing.
Anti trust is impossible to prosecute. For one thing, much of the government data is on AWS services.
“The only US government Internet is the series of secure networks connecting US government facilities”
Nope. Wrong again. The US still maintains the Internet as its own. You need to read more about it.
Thanks for the ping.
“In your world, since I paid for my room, I’m good to go until 10am checkout.”
No, because the contract doesn’t allow me to commit criminal acts or deliberately destroy property. But Parler WAS making a good faith effort to comply with Amazon’s rules, and Amazon did not comply with the time requirements if Amazon felt Parler was not.
“however, that we will provide at least 90 days’ advance notice in accordance with Section 13.10 for adverse changes to any Service Level Agreement.”
You see, Parler undoubtedly DID read their contract. Inn full. And probably had a lawyer review it, since their business depended on it. Certainly any lawyer, before filing a lawsuit, would want to read the contract.
And Amazon cannot, for any reason at any time, suspend service. So if Amazon does not comply with THEIR end of the contract, you have....breach of contract. And if they are doing it to help another, much larger client run you out of business, then you have possible antitrust violations.
You know what, you're absolutely right. They would do that. And any ethical lawyer would sooner quit.
“And any ethical lawyer would sooner quit.”
And as we all know, no lawyers would quit for fear of how their other clients would perceive their work for a company Google, Apple and Amazon are attacking.
Are you SURE you belong of FREE Republic?
ethical lawyer
Oxymoron.
Anyone know any status or update on Parler’s getting on new servers? Serious question, please mature posters, no s*it posts, please.
Not yet AFAIK.....................
Plenty of Standing because this is clearly a Contract Breach that is easy to Prove since Parler pays them for the service.
Democrat Leaners in here be aware I am Fact Check here at FR.
Ops4Freepers
“They dont have simple web site that they just flip onto another web hosting provider. Migrating takes times so this buys them 30 days that Amazon must give them before severing.”
I help administer systems like this. Certainly not as large as Parler.
Their biggest challenge is probably the database. The sheer size of the dataset is extreme. Properly speaking, they should’ve had up to date backups located somewhere other than AWS, either another cloud storage host or on prem storage system (the latter being the better choice for obvious reasons).
The fact that this is still dragging on suggests they may not have had that backup, OR, the dataset is so large, it’s taking this long to simply upload it to the DB server running in the new hosting provider’s data center. If that’s the case, they should’ve drove it out to the data center in a truck. Such things have been done.
The web component is just code and all it needs is a front end server.
What I’m concerned about is that Parler doesn’t actually have their DB anymore, in which case they are screwed long, hard, and without recourse. If they still have the site’s source code, they could still conceivably get the system stood up and just restart from scratch, but that’s not ideal.
I never joined Twitter. I was of the opinion that Trump should never have used that platform. Twitter is literally a sewer for foul mother commies.
I never went there for his tweets. The comments were just poison to my soul.
I did divest of all my mutual funds that have any investments in Twitter or Amazon or Google or Facebook.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.