Parler versus Amazon

If you were to try and visit http://www.parler.com, you won’t get anywhere because the server can’t be found. Parler is a social media network created in response to perceived censorship on both Twitter and Facebook. Like many other platforms, it utilizes Amazon Web Services (AWS) to run the site. They are now suing Amazon, claiming violations of antitrust law.

Just this past week, the Parler mobile app was removed from the Apple App Store and Google Play App Store. Soon afterwards Amazon banned Parler from its servers. This comes in response to the recent riots at the US State Capitol that broke out after a protest over the results of the 2020 election. Many of the users of Parler are conservative and many are also Trump supporters. The justification for these actions has been that Parler hasn’t been effective in moderating and removing threats of violence from its platform.

Amazon points to its customer agreement, which, under section 6, says that they may suspend your access to the service if you or an end user, in this case a user of Parler, poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, could adversely impact our systems or those of any other AWS customer, or could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability.

At a first glance, they may have a case, as any threats of violence may open up Amazon to liability. One thing stands in the way of that happening though, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230).

This section says “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Parler claims that Amazon is engaging in anticompetitive actions, especially since Twitter also uses Amazon Web Services and Parler uses some security measures that Twitter doesn’t, including requiring a driver’s license or ID along with a selfie to private message with other users. They also have terms of service that also include the statement that a user can be held responsible for costs, such as attorney’s fees, that arise from their use of the service.

If we consider the legal protection given by 47 U.S.C. § 230, Amazon should have given a 30 day notice before terminating their service.

In regards to the mobile apps, Apple has pointed to their app review policy regarding objectionable content under the section regarding user generated. Apps with that kind of content must include methods to filter objectionable content, a way to report content and timely responses, the ability to block users and for there to be published contact information in the app. Apple has already been accused of anticompetitive behavior once before by Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite.

As of this post, there were no legal documents available online.

Sources:

Leave a comment