Not only that, but Parler ran directly afoul of contract provisions they agreed to that specifically gave AWS the right to terminate without notice. People making these arguments about Parler's relationship with AWS don't seem to have actually read the AWS terms.

According to Amazon. Parler has vociferously disputed this.

You can read 100 different takedowns of Parler's arguments, but they're all mooted by the fact that Parler was self-evidently hosting material that contravened the AWS term allowing them to be cut off without notice. Parler has no case here.

Broken record: I'm still surprised so many people here have so little exposure to the hosting business to believe that there's actually an inviolate right to due process in keeping your stuff hosted somewhere. Hosting providers have to kick users off all the time. It is a basic fact of life in hosting: people abuse stuff.

Parler wasn't running a phishing scam, spamming, or DDoS'ing people, but that's not my point; my point is: if you're a hosting provider, your contracts basically have to give you the right to boot people at your discretion. The idea that anyone thought AWS's might not? Baffling.

Parler isn't disputing that abusive content was posted. Their claim is for breach of contract, antitrust, and torturous interference.

The following is an excerpt from https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/34/parler-llc-... the order denying the injunction.

"AWS has submitted to the Court multiple representative examples, reflecting content posted on Parler during this period, that AWS claims violated the terms of the AUP and the parties’ Agreement. ... Parler has not denied that these posts are abusive or that they violate the Acceptable Use Policy. "