Yeah, I think the contract claims are the most transparently weak (I think all the claims are weak and that the lawsuit is more perfomative gesture for PR grievance than filed with substantial expectation of recovery, but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.)
> but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.
I don't know, they do have some of the greatest hits from those lawsuits:
* Let's ask the court to prevent things that have already happened (it wants to restrain AWS from cutting off service to Parler, but it filed the suit after that happened).
* File exhibits that are atrociously unusable (the PDF of the service agreement clearly cuts out several lines of text, although I think this was unintentional).
* Provide a single paragraph of argument to address the single claim that actually gives your claim federal jurisdiction at all.
* Clearly incapable of reading contract plain text (in this case). The contract claims are likely to fail since AWS has a right to terminate it unilaterally (which they don't address in their filing all), but it's moot anyways because binding arbitration clause means the court has no right to hear it.
* Evidence for their claim boils down to "there's no other possible reason anyone would want to shut us down than CONSPIRACY!"
* Urgency is requested, but there's no motions to actually grant urgent relief (e.g., an emergency filing or motion for expedited relief).
* Plaintiff fails to spell its own name correctly in a few cases (admittedly, only one here).
