Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 13
`
`The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`PARLER LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`No. 2:21-cv-00031-BJR
`DEFENDANT AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PARLER LLC’S MOTION
`FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031-BJR) - 1
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 13
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a
`conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and
`inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens
`the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named
`public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or
`otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its
`content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address
`the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS
`suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including
`plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.
`Despite Parler’s rhetoric, its lawsuit is no more than a meritless claim for breach of
`contract. But the facts are unequivocal: If there is any breach, it is Parler’s demonstrated failure
`and inability to identify and remove such content. AWS was well within its rights to suspend
`Parler immediately for those failures. Parler also cannot hold AWS liable in tort for enforcing
`the agreement’s express terms. And there is no antitrust claim where, as here, Parler cannot
`plausibly plead an agreement to cause it harm and the complained-of conduct is undeniably
`compatible with a legitimate purpose.
`Compelling AWS to host content that plans, encourages, and incites violence would be
`unprecedented. Parler has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and the balance of equities
`and public interest strongly tip against an injunction. The motion for a temporary restraining
`order should be denied.
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Parler Conducts the “Absolute Minimum” of Content Moderation.1
`A.
`Parler operates a social media service that has gained favor as an alternative to Facebook
`and Twitter. Doran Decl. Ex. A. Parler prides itself on its hands-off approach to moderating
`
`1 Declaration of Ambika Doran Ex. B.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 1
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 3 of 13
`
`user content. Parler’s homepage tells users to “[s]peak freely and express yourself openly,
`without fear of being ‘deplatformed’ for your views.” Id. In interviews, Parler’s CEO has stated
`he “do[es]n’t think it’s [Parler’s] obligation to” monitor the full range of it users’ content, Doran
`Decl. Ex. O, and promoted the service’s laissez-faire philosophy on content moderation. See id.
`Ex. D (“If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler”); id. Ex. E at 4:48
`(“[W]hat we’ve decided to do is, let’s just not do any curation, no fact checking, let people do
`that on their own ....”); id. at 5:42 (attributing Parler’s projected growth to not moderating
`content as other social media services do); id. Ex. C at 2:02 (stating “we really don’t want to get
`into the business of kind of determining what is and is not allowed to be discussed”).
`
`Parler Enters an Agreement with AWS for Web Hosting Services.
`B.
`On June 12, 2018, Parler signed up with AWS, which provides hosting and cloud
`computing services for businesses, nonprofits, and government organizations globally.
`Declaration of Amazon Executive 2 ¶ 3. Parler accepted the terms of the AWS Customer
`Agreement. Id. Ex. A. The Agreement requires that Parler “ensure that Your Content and your
`and End Users’ use of Your Content or the Service Offerings will not violate any of the Policies
`or any applicable law,” and makes clear that Parler is “solely responsible for the development,
`content, operation, maintenance, and use of” the material on its service. Id. § 4.2; see also id.
`§ 4.5 (“You will ensure that all End Users comply with your obligations under this Agreement
`....”). The Agreement also requires Parler to “immediately suspend access” to content that it
`learns violates its obligations under the Agreement. Id. § 4.5.
`Parler further agreed to comply with AWS’s Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”). Id. § 14;
`see also Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. C. The AUP, in turn, makes clear Parler’s agreement not to
`use AWS to host certain content, including content that “violate[s] the rights of others, or that
`may be harmful to others.” Id.
`The Agreement further makes clear that AWS may suspend or terminate an account
`“immediately” upon notice if AWS determines that an end user’s use of the services “poses a
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 2
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 4 of 13
`
`security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party,” or otherwise breaches the Agreement.
`Id. Ex. A § 6.1(a)-(b) (suspension); id. § 7.2(b) (termination).
`
`
`
`
`
`Parler Repeatedly Violates the Agreement.
`C.
`In mid-November 2020, AWS received reports that Parler was hosting content
`threatening violence, in breach of the agreement. Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 4. On November 17,
`2020, seeking to better understand Parler’s approach to content moderation, AWS provided
`Parler two representative examples, asked whether “this type of content … violate[s] [Parler’s]
`policies,” and asked for “more detailed information on [Parler’s] policies and processes for
`handling and mitigating” such content. Id. & Ex. D. Two days later, Parler responded that it had
`referred one of the examples to its “regular contact for investigation.” Id. Ex. D.
`Over the next seven weeks, AWS reported more than 100 additional representative pieces
`of content advocating violence to Parler’s Chief Policy Officer, including:
`“Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates
`#chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and
`you will know it.”
`“#JackDorsey … you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd
`[Zuckerberg].… It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember
`the photographs inside your home while you slept? Yes, that close. You will die a
`sudden death!”
`“We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and
`acquire targets.”
`“On January 20th we need to start systematicly [sic] assassinating [sic] #liberal
`leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of the #nba #nfl
`#mlb #nhl #mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents and #antifa. I already
`have a news worthy event planned.”
`“Shoot the police that protect these shitbag senators right in the head then make the
`senator grovel a bit before capping they ass.”
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 3
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“After the firing squads are done with the politicians the teachers are next.”
`“Death to @zuckerberg @realjeffbezos @jackdorsey @pichai.”
`“White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death
`like a hurricane upon zionists.”
`“Put a target on these motherless trash [Antifa] they aren’t human taking one out
`would be like stepping on a roach no different.”
`“We need to act like our forefathers did Kill [Black and Jewish people] all Leave
`no victims or survivors.”
`“We are coming with our list we know where you live we know who you are and
`we are coming for you and it starts on the 6th civil war… Lol if you will think it’s
`a joke… Enjoy your last few days you have.”
`“This bitch [Stacey Abrams] will be good target practice for our beginners.”
`“This cu** [United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao] should be…
`hung for betraying their country.”
`“Hang this mofo [Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] today.”
`“HANG THAt N***** ASAP”
`
`Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. E at 1-3, 6-7, 13, 17, 28, 32, 49, 53-54; see also generally id. Ex. F
`(more examples).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AWS Exercises Its Right to Suspend Parler’s Account.
`D.
`On January 6, 2021, rioters supporting President Trump’s efforts to overturn President-
`Elect Biden’s victory stormed the U.S. Capitol. Doran Decl. Exs. F-H. Five people died,
`including a police officer. Id. Ex. I. The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have since
`opened at least 25 domestic terrorism cases relating to these incidents. Id.
`Content encouraging violence continued to grow rapidly after the events of January 6,
`and on January 8, 9, and 10, 2021, AWS reported additional examples of that content. Executive
`2 Decl. ¶ 6. On January 8 and 9, AWS also spoke with Parler executives about its content
`moderation policies, processes, and tools, and emphasized that Parler’s current approach failed to
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 4
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 6 of 13
`
`address Parler’s duty to promptly identify and remove content that threatened or encouraged
`violence. Id. In response, Parler outlined additional, reactive steps that would rely almost
`exclusively on “volunteers.” Id. AWS continued to see problematic content hosted on Parler.
`Id. ¶ 7. During one of the calls, Parler’s CEO reported that Parler had a backlog of 26,000
`reports of content that violated its community standards and remained on its service. Id.
`On January 9, 2021, Apple and Google terminated Parler’s accounts. Doran Decl. Ex. N.
`The same day, AWS notified Parler it would suspend its account effective 11:59 p.m. January
`10. Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 7 & Dkt. 1-1.2 AWS explained it “remain[s] troubled by the repeated
`violations of our terms of service,” noting it had “reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that
`clearly encourage and incite violence.” Id. Dkt. 1-1. AWS also reported the “steady increase in
`this violent content,” making “clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with
`the AWS terms of service.” Id. The email also notes Parler “remove[s] some violent content
`when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency,” and Parler’s proposed moderation
`plans “will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.” Id. The letter
`confirms that AWS will “ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own
`servers, and will work with you as best we can to help your migration.” Id.
`That evening, Parler’s CEO posted that “[w]e should be operational within less then [sic]
`12 hours of downtime after Amazon abruptly pulls our access.” Doran Decl. Ex. K. He also
`posted that Parler had “prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons [sic]
`proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.” Id. Ex. J.
`Parler filed its complaint and motion for temporary restraining order January 11. Dkts. 1,
`2. Despite speculation in the Complaint, see, e.g., Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 4, Parler alleges no facts
`that could possibly support its claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with
`prospective economic advantage, or violations of the Sherman Act. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`2 Parler accuses Amazon of leaking this letter to the press before sending it to Parler. Compl.
`¶ 21. But this is based on an erroneous assumption that that the time stamp on the email showing
`Parler received the letter reflects Pacific Time, rather than Central Time. In fact, Amazon sent
`the letter to Parler before the press obtained the letter.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 5
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 7 of 13
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Lopez v. Brewer,
`680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation & internal quotation marks omitted); see also
`Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The standard for issuing a
`temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary
`injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th
`Cir. 2001). The plaintiff must establish (1) “[it] is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “[it] is
`likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities
`tips in [its] favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
`Failing that, even were there “serious questions going to the merits,” and there are not, a
`preliminary injunction may issue only “if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s
`favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
`1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Parler has not satisfied any of these elements.
`
`A.
`
`Parler Cannot Show A Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits.
`1.
`AWS Did Not Breach the Agreement.
`To establish a breach of contract, a plaintiff must identify the “specific term of the
`contract” the defendant allegedly breached. Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., 191 Wn.2d 343,
`376 (2018); see also Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1166,
`1171 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (no contract claim where plaintiff failed to identify section of contract
`breached), aff’d, 691 F. App’x 406 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Executive 2 Decl. Ex. A §§ 13.4, 14
`(Washington law “govern[s] th[e] Agreement”).
`Parler claims AWS breached the agreement by failing to provide thirty days’ notice of
`termination (to be clear, AWS suspended and did not terminate the account). But it was Parler
`who breached the agreement, by hosting content advocating violence and failing to timely take
`that content down. The Agreement requires Parler to ensure that neither its content nor the
`content of Parler’s users violates AWS’s policies or the law. Executive 2 Decl. Ex. A § 4.2. The
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 6
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 8 of 13
`
`policies include the AUP, which prohibits “illegal” or “harmful” use, including content that
`“may be harmful to others,” id. § 14; id. Ex. C, and requires Parler to “immediately suspend
`access” if it becomes aware the content violates the agreement. Executive 2 Decl. Ex. A § 4.5.
`If Parler fails to comply with these duties, AWS may “immediately” suspend Parler’s account.
`See id. § 6.1 (a)-(b).
`The content AWS provided to Parler is merely representative of volumes of content that
`poses a security risk and harms others, in direct violation of the AUP. See id. Exs. E-F
`(examples). That content includes, but is not limited to, calls for violence against a wide range
`of individuals, including elected officials, law enforcement officers, and teachers. People have
`acted on these calls: Parler was used to incite, organize, and coordinate the January 6 attack on
`the U.S. Capitol. See Doran Decl. Exs. F-G. AWS reported to Parler, over many weeks, dozens
`of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill
`Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head. Executive 2 Decl. Exs. D-F.
`Parler systematically failed to “suspend access” to this content, much less to do so immediately,
`and demonstrated that it has no effective process in place to ensure future compliance.3
`Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 7. Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that
`violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed. Id. Parler’s own
`failures left AWS little choice but to suspend Parler’s account.
`Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend
`Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. For example, Parler cites the hashtag
`“#hangmikepence,” which briefly trended on Twitter. Mot. ¶ 4. But AWS does not host
`Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content. Executive 1
`Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Twitter has since independently blocked that hashtag. Doran Decl. Ex. L.
`
`3 Parler claims it removed the content AWS flagged, Compl. ¶ 29, but Parler failed to do so in a
`timely manner, or required follow up, sometimes several times, Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 5.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 7
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 9 of 13
`
`2.
`
`AWS Did Not Tortiously Interfere with Parler’s Business
`Expectancies.
`Parler cannot plead around its contract claim by asserting a claim for tortious
`interference. An interference claim requires the plaintiff to establish (1) a valid contractual
`relationship or business expectancy; (2) the defendant had knowledge of that relationship; (3) an
`intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or
`expectancy; (4) the defendant interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means; and
`(5) resultant damage. Pac. Nw. Shooting Park Ass’n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342, 351
`(2006). Parler fails to allege several of these elements.
`First and most important, Parler bases its interference claim on its allegation that Amazon
`“terminat[ed] Parler’s Agreement.” Compl. ¶ 51. However, where the defendant’s alleged
`interference is the exercise of a contractual right, a plaintiff has “no reasonable expectancy” and
`cannot assert an interference claim. Birkenwald Distrib. Co. v. Heublein, Inc., 55 Wn. App. 1,
`10 (1989). Because the Agreement permitted Amazon to suspend Parler, Parler cannot assert a
`tortious interference claim based on the suspension. Hein v. Chrysler Corp., 45 Wn.2d 586, 595,
`598 (1954) (where “true gist of the action” is contract breach, courts dismiss interference claims;
`damage “may be fully recovered by the injured party in his breach of contract action”).
`Further, Parler has not alleged any interference was for an improper purpose or done
`through improper means. “Improper purpose” requires that the interferor acted out of “greed,
`retaliation, or hostility,” Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 174 Wn.2d 157, 169 (2012), and
`“wrongful means” requires the alleged interference be “wrongful by some measure beyond the
`fact of the interference itself,” Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 804 (1989) (citation &
`internal quotation marks omitted). Parler speculates that AWS suspended Parler’s account for
`improper reasons, but that speculation elides entirely the fact that (as AWS repeatedly warned it)
`Parler repeatedly violated the Agreement. Supra at III.A.1.
`
`AWS Did Not Violate the Sherman Act.
`3.
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead the most basic elements of a Section 1 claim. “§1
`requires: (1) a ‘contract, combination or conspiracy among two or persons or distinct business
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 8
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 10 of 13
`
`entities’; (2) which is intended to restrain or harm trade; (3) ‘which actually injures competition’;
`and (4) harm to the plaintiff from the anticompetitive conduct.” NameSpace Inc. v. Internet
`Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, 795 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015).
`As the Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a
`plaintiff claiming a Section 1 violation must plead “enough factual matter (taken as true) to
`suggest that an agreement was made.” Id. at 556-57; Insulate SB Inc., v. Advanced Fishing
`Systems Inc. et al., 797 F. 3d 538, 544-46 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying same principles to vertical
`agreements). But Parler does not even claim Twitter and AWS communicated about Parler,
`much less formed an agreement. Nor could it, as a senior AWS executive testified AWS did not
`authorize and is not aware of such communications. Executive 1 Decl. ¶ 8. The Complaint
`alleges only that Amazon has agreed to provide cloud infrastructure to deliver Twitter feeds, see
`Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, and then asserts that “AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
`in combination with Defendant [sic] Twitter.” Id. ¶ 5. As Twombly holds, this does not suffice
`to survive a motion to dismiss: “[A] conclusory allegation of agreement at some unidentified
`point does not supply facts adequate to show illegality.” 550 U.S. at 557.
`Further, “[f]ollowing Twombly, courts dismiss Section 1 complaints when there is an
`independent business justification for the observed conduct and no basis for rejecting it as the
`explanation for the conduct.” In re McCormick & Co. Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 124, 132-34 (D.D.C.
`2016) (granting motion to dismiss based on Twombly, citing other cases); see also Souza v.
`Estate of Bishop, 821 F.2d 1132, 1335 (9th Cir. 1987) (Where there is an “understandable and
`legitimate business reason” for each defendant’s conduct, plaintiff fails to state a Section 1
`claim). Here, not only does AWS have a legitimate business reason to suspend Parler’s account,
`but that reason—keeping content that violates its agreement with customers off its servers—is
`the only plausible conclusion. To be clear, AWS has no incentive to stop doing business with
`paying customers that comply with its agreements. Parler failed to meet that obligation, and fails
`to state a claim for an antitrust violation, much less to show a likelihood of prevailing on the
`merits of its antitrust claim.
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 9
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 11 of 13
`
`Parler’s antitrust allegations fail also because they do not even plead the basic
`requirements of a Sherman Act claim, such as how competition is harmed, NYNEX Corp. v.
`Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 135 (1998), the relevant product and geographic markets, Tanaka v.
`Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2001), the share of those markets enjoyed by
`AWS, Rick-Mik Enters., Inc. v. Equilon Enters. LLC, 532 F.3d 963, 972-73 (9th Cir. 2008), and
`others. This is especially important where, as here, Parler freely admits that it has access to
`numerous potential web-hosting service providers—not claimed to be involved in or restrained
`by the alleged conspiracy—with whom Parler can freely contract. See Compl. ¶ 23. Those
`alternatives alone preclude Parler from stating a plausible claim for relief. See Omega Envtl.,
`Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc., 127 F.3d 1157, 1162-64 (9th Cir. 1997).
`
`Section 230 Bars Interference and Antitrust Claims.
`4.
`In addition to their facial deficiencies, Parler’s interference and antitrust claims also fail
`under Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act. Under that statute, the provider of
`an “interactive computer service” is immune for acting in good faith to restrict access to material
`that is excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570
`F.3d 1096 1105 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)). That is precisely what AWS did
`here: removed access to content it considered “excessively violent” and “harassing[.]” 47
`U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A); see Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2007 WL 5189857, at *4 (W.D.
`Wash. Aug. 28, 2007) (assessment of objectionable content is subjective to the provider), aff’d,
`568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009); Holomaxx Techs. v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2011 WL 865794, at *5 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 11, 2011) (same).4
`
`4 Parler’s antitrust and interference claims are also barred by § 230(c)(1). See, e.g., Riggs v.
`MySpace, Inc., 444 F. App’x 986, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (Section 230(c)(1) immunizes “decisions
`to delete [plaintiff’s] user profiles”); Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp.
`3d 1107, 1116-21 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (dismissing claims based on removal of plaintiff’s account,
`postings, and content); Mezey v. Twitter, Inc., 2018 WL 5306769, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)
`(dismissing plaintiff’s claims that Twitter unlawfully suspended his account); Dipp-Paz v.
`Facebook, 2019 WL 3205842, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019) (Section 230 bars claims arising
`from suspension of plaintiff’s Facebook account).
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 10
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 12 of 13
`
`The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Disfavor an Injunction.
`B.
`To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff also “must establish that ‘the balance of equities
`tips in [its] favor.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
`Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). “The less certain … the likelihood of success on the merits, the more
`plaintiffs must convince the district court that the public interest and balance of hardships tip in
`their favor.” Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003).
`Courts also must consider whether the relief would adversely affect the rights of nonparties or
`the public. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 26.
`The hardships on AWS and the public from an injunction would far outweigh any
`speculative damage Parler claims it may suffer from a short interruption of its service.
`First, compelling AWS to host Parler content would threaten the safety of individuals.
`This risk is not speculative. The violence at the U.S. Capitol was assisted by content posted by
`Parler users. See, e.g., Doran Decl. Ex. F (sites including Parler used to provide “directions on
`which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors”).
`Forcing Amazon to host such content poses further risk, including at the inauguration next week.
`Such a requirement also poses a risk to Amazon itself, with posts calling for others to “burn
`down Amazon delivery trucks” until they “reverse course.” Executive 2 Decl. Ex. F. By
`suspending Parler’s account, AWS seeks to prevent illegal and violent acts from being
`coordinated using AWS’s resources—a right the Agreement secures.
`Second, any injunction would impair AWS’s ability to take swift action against
`customers who misuse its services to promote violence. Requiring AWS to allow services like
`Parler to remain active through weeks or months of court proceedings would heighten the risk of
`violence and harm to the public.
`Finally, Parler’s allegations of harm contradict its own public statements. Parler’s CEO
`has assured users that Parler “prepared for events like [the termination] by never relying on
`amazons [sic] proprietary infrastructure,” that the site will be fully operational “with less then
`[sic] 12 hours of downtime” after termination, and that Parler has “many [companies] competing
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 11
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 10 Filed 01/12/21 Page 13 of 13
`
`for [its] [hosting] business.” Doran Decl. Exs. J-K. Accordingly, the balance of the equities and
`public interest weigh strongly against the issuance of any injunction.
`
`C.
`
`Parler Has Failed to Show It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent an
`Injunction.
`A TRO is also not warranted because Parler has not shown irreparable harm is likely.
`Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131. Irreparable harm is “harm which cannot be
`redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following trial.” Campbell Soup Co. v ConAgra,
`Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3rd Cir. 1992) (citation & internal quotation marks omitted). Monetary
`harm is not “irreparable” injury. L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n, 634 F.2d at 1202.
`Parler has not identified irreparable harm. AWS has promised to preserve Parler’s data
`and help Parler migrate its services elsewhere. Dkt. 1-1. Parler’s CEO has acknowledged that
`the service never has relied on AWS exclusively. Doran Decl. Ex. J. He also told Parler users
`that the service may be operational within twelve hours of AWS’s suspension of Parler’s
`account. Id. Ex. K. A temporary service interruption is not irreparable harm, and any alleged
`harm would be compensable by damages.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Because Parler has not met the exceptionally high standard for a TRO, AWS respectfully
`asks the Court to deny Parler’s motion.
`DATED this 12TH day of January, 2021.
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`Attorneys for Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`By s/Ambika K. Doran
`Ambika Kumar Doran, WSBA #38237
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`Telephone: 206-622-3150
`E-mail: ambikadoran@dwt.com
`Alonzo Wickers IV, Cal. State Bar #169454
`pro hac vice application forthcoming
`865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: 213-633-6800
`E-mail: alonzowickers@dwt.com
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
`RESTRAINING ORDER (No. 2:21-cv-00031) - 12
`4813-5403-5670v.5 0050033-000653
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`