IANAL, but I already see one massive issue with the lawsuit:
Count 1 is a claim against the Sherman Antitrust Act. By their own citation (see claim 31), they need to allege specific facts that would conclude (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition.
There's no facts that allege (2). Actually, I suspect they also need to list Twitter as a defendant to properly claim (1) as well, since it's Twitter that has the alleged monopoly, and the one for whom the alleged conspiracy to restrain trade exists.
Their facts probably don't even amount to alleging (1). They basically say "AWS also provides services to Twitter" (okay that's not a conspiracy by itself) and "Twitter also had an issue with the #HangMikePence hashtag" (omitting the fact that Twitter did kill the hashtag)--which still doesn't allege a conspiracy.
Count 1 is a claim against the Sherman Antitrust Act. By their own citation (see claim 31), they need to allege specific facts that would conclude (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition.
There's no facts that allege (2). Actually, I suspect they also need to list Twitter as a defendant to properly claim (1) as well, since it's Twitter that has the alleged monopoly, and the one for whom the alleged conspiracy to restrain trade exists.
Their facts probably don't even amount to alleging (1). They basically say "AWS also provides services to Twitter" (okay that's not a conspiracy by itself) and "Twitter also had an issue with the #HangMikePence hashtag" (omitting the fact that Twitter did kill the hashtag)--which still doesn't allege a conspiracy.
I'm sure some actual lawyers will shortly comment on whatever other gross procedural filings this lawsuit has (https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/134870050647095296... suggests there's quite a few).