Don't think that flies. They quote a generic section on Termination for Convenience but completely leave out the relevant section on Suspension + Termination for Cause:

From section 6.1 on Suspension:

    We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine ... (a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party

Then they go on to complain about how AWS has completely terminated them, but that section also doesn't appear favorable.

From section 7.2 on Termination:

    We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6

Parler has copious amounts of this violent content going back for months, so it seems like this is a sure case of a "willful and continuing failure" to apply the required moderation in the agreement. IMO this shows an ongoing breach of contract so the "for Cause" clauses would apply.

The Anti-Trust argument seems like the strongest here but that's pretty notoriously difficult to succeed with. I guess not too far from the App Store cases going on right now.

The AWS agreement is here: https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

TLDR: Content promoting violence - clearly more than mere threats given the actions of several users on Jan. 6 - is against the AWS agreement and services can be terminated immediately upon notice.

I haven't looked at standard AWS contract language but they ban people all the time for TOS violations, and I will be pretty shocked if their contracts don't have an allowance for sudden cut-offs, because that's something they routinely need to be able to do.

Unless they have a different agreement from the standard User Agreement, AWS Custom Agreement[0] 7.2(b)(ii) states that:

    (ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement
    immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have
    the right to suspend under Section 6, (B) if our
    relationship with a third-party partner who provides
    software or other technology we use to provide the Service
    Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the
    way we provide the software or other technology as part of
    the Services, or (C) in order to comply with the law or
    requests of governmental entities.

Upon examining 6 of that document:

    (a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings
    (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any
    third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the
    Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other
    AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or
    any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent;

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

Count Two goes into more detail. They claim that AWS is calling this a service suspension as they're retaining the data and are helping to facilitate the transfer out of AWS. Parler disputes this and calls it a termination of the contract.

This will likely be be the source of the debate. It's not directly said, but I would assume AWS is suspending service until it ultimately terminates the account. So it'll be contested if the time that it's suspended, but services still somewhat being rendered, constitutes a termination.

Paragraph 5:

Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.

> "Doing so is the equivalent of pulling the plug on a hospital patient onlife support. It will kill Parler’s business—at the very time it is set to skyrocket."

I don't know if they can hold that true that people will be signing up per "skyrocket" metaphor. They can use past data, but cannot use unknown future data.

Para 4 and 5 for those wondering:

>AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.

>5. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.

Remember, these are unchallenged claims from Parler.

I think the only interesting bit here is the 30h vs 30 day notice period. The cynic in me is interested to see the contract: if there was a 30 day notice in it, I imagine Parler could have gotten an emergency injunction to stay online. Unless there isn't or parler preferred to be "taken" off line for PR reasons?

Sorry if that view is a bit conspiracy-theory-esque...

IANAL, but from what I understand, contract law is below criminal law priority-wise.

If you knowingly were to provide meeting rooms for people plotting a coup or violence, I think you'd still be on the hook for something much greater than breach of contract, which is a civil claim.

Assuming this is in reference to the AWS Customer Agreement: https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

> 7.2 Termination.

> (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.

> (b) Termination for Cause.

> (i) By Either Party. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause if the other party is in material breach of this Agreement and the material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice by the other party. No later than the Termination Date, you will close your account.

> (ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6, (B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other technology as part of the Services, or (C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental entities.

(ii) (A) does not include the "breach of contract remains uncured for 30 days" stipulation; when Amazon has the right to suspend under Section 6 they may also terminate the agreement immediately.

Their "right to suspend under Section 6" includes:

> (a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent;

> (b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement;

Under (a), I could certainly see Amazon make an argument that Parler's use of the service offings poses a security risk to third parties. Not an electronic one necessarily, but I would think "a bunch of people threatening to hang the vice president" would qualify.

And under (b), Parler's end users being in breach of the agreement, they have plenty of a case as well. See Section 4: Your Responsibilities in the link above (I'm not going to excerpt all of it), but it includes these lines:

> you are responsible for all activities that occur under your account, regardless of whether the activities are authorized by you or undertaken by you, your employees or a third party (including your contractors, agents or End Users)

> You will 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. You are solely responsible for the development, content, operation, maintenance, and use of Your Content.

> You will ensure that all End Users comply with your obligations under this Agreement and that the terms of your agreement with each End User are consistent with this Agreement. If you become aware of any violation of your obligations under this Agreement caused by an End User, you will immediately suspend access to Your Content and the Service Offerings by such End User.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think that's a clear-cut "Amazon violated the contract" win for Parler

I assume AWS is smart enough to include "emergency" language where there is a reasonable threat to life.