Parler sues in Federal court...

Claims anti-trust, breach of contract, and inconsistent standards

The ole "I am not a lawyer" as a preface to providing questionable legal opinions is used so much that it should be right up there with the check in the mail and other dubious clichés. But here goes anyways. I am not a lawyer, but... 

I don't believe Parler has much in the way of an "anti-trust" argument unless they can show or prove some sort of agreement (explicit, implicit or otherwise) between Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook. They can certainly make a strong argument that the decision to drop them from the servers creates an ex-facto monopoly for twitter of that particular style platform. But how can you hold Amazon and others responsible for that.

The breach of contract (where they were promised a 30 day grace period before ending the contract) could be stronger depending on how the contract is written and on what sort of warnings Amazon may or may not have provided Parler prior to the decision to give them 24 hours. There are claims that Amazon provided a list of posts for Parler to delete previously. Did Parler delete the offending posts or did they refuse? Of course, even if they win that portion of the lawsuit, all that does is buy them a little time.

However, where Parler might have a good point is in the argument that Amazon is singling Parler out and punishing them for the same sort of behavior that Twitter, Facebook, and others also engage in. I don't think it will be difficult for Parler (and I am sure they already have plenty of examples) to show hateful speech on Twitter and others that match what may have been seen on Parler. In fact, there is probably a much larger collection of such on the larger networks... including actual terrorist activities that have been known to be planned using those forums. As far as I know, Hamas, and other international terror groups are not using Parler. But they have used both Twitter and Facebook.

Lastly, the 24 hour notice seems a bit extreme and was prefaced on the implication that Parler may have been where the Capital building infiltration might have been planned and the shut down was to prevent future occurances. However, by all accounts, it appears that to the degree that there was coordination, that this coordination had taken place on Facebook. At this point there is nothing to suggest that any of the people arrested on January 6th even have a Parler account. Certainly using the Capital building infiltration as an excuse to shut down Parler would require Amazon to actually prove that those responsible actually used Parler to plan something?

Again, not sure that the inconsistent standards assists in the anti-trust portion, the  breach of contract, or stands on it's own. But in terms of real life fairness, they seem to have a legitimate gripe here.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but...