Count 1 (antitrust) fails because you need to actually allege a conspiracy, not just say "Twitter is also a customer of AWS!" I mean, I immediately realized it was deficient on their initial brief, because they didn't even back up enough evidence to satisfy their own citations, let alone explain how they can pass the big citation they conveniently omit (Twombly).
Counts 2 and 3 fail because the gravamen is that AWS violated its own contract by not giving 30 days' notice. Ignoring the very next paragraph that says AWS can terminate with no notice. Their own response to that point in the reply brief was pitiful.
Actually, their response was so pitiful they tried a second reply brief (that's the "supplemental authority" brief) where they instead changed their argument to "this is our reading of the contract, and you have to endorse it because it's a contract of adhesion." Which instead comes across as "we totally missed that part in the contract, and now we're trying to legal fu our way out of not reading a contract." Changing your argument on the fly doesn't tend to go very well in the courts.
The quality of their legal briefs is not impressive, and when you're going up a large corporation with deep pockets and competent legal attorneys to defend themselves, you're going to have a very rough time of it.
My working theory is that they didn't notice it until AWS pointed it out in the reply brief.
Their previous attorney apparently dropped them as a client sometime around the 8th, and I suspect this lawsuit was put together in extreme rush on the 10th to keep Parler running. It absolutely wouldn't surprise me if neither Parler nor the attorney actually reviewed the agreement in enough detail to notice that AWS had the right to terminate immediately. Admittedly, this theory doesn't explain how the antitrust count gets added.
Count 1 (antitrust) fails because you need to actually allege a conspiracy, not just say "Twitter is also a customer of AWS!" I mean, I immediately realized it was deficient on their initial brief, because they didn't even back up enough evidence to satisfy their own citations, let alone explain how they can pass the big citation they conveniently omit (Twombly).
Counts 2 and 3 fail because the gravamen is that AWS violated its own contract by not giving 30 days' notice. Ignoring the very next paragraph that says AWS can terminate with no notice. Their own response to that point in the reply brief was pitiful.
Actually, their response was so pitiful they tried a second reply brief (that's the "supplemental authority" brief) where they instead changed their argument to "this is our reading of the contract, and you have to endorse it because it's a contract of adhesion." Which instead comes across as "we totally missed that part in the contract, and now we're trying to legal fu our way out of not reading a contract." Changing your argument on the fly doesn't tend to go very well in the courts.
The quality of their legal briefs is not impressive, and when you're going up a large corporation with deep pockets and competent legal attorneys to defend themselves, you're going to have a very rough time of it.