Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 34 Filed 01/21/21 Page 9 of 14 1 2 3 definition. See AWS Opp. Br. at 3-4 (citing Exec. 2 Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. E at 1-3, 6-7, 13, 17, 28, 32, 49, 53-54). Parler has not denied that content posted on its platform violated the terms of the CSA 4 and the AUP; it claims only that AWS failed to provide notice to Parler that Parler was in breach, 5 and to give Parler 30 days to cure, as Parler claims is required per Section 7.2(b)(i). However, 6 Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2(b)(ii)—the provision immediately 7 following—authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without 8 9 providing any opportunity to cure “if [AWS has] the right to suspend under Section 6.” And 10 Section 6 provides, in turn, that AWS may “suspend [Parler’s or its] End User’s right to access 11 or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice” for a number of 12 reasons, including if AWS determines that Parler is “in breach of this Agreement.” In short, the 13 CSA gives AWS the right either to suspend or to terminate, immediately upon notice, in the 14 event Parler is in breach. 15 Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights 16 17 under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP. It has therefore 18 failed, at this stage in the proceedings, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its breach of 19 contract claim. 20 21 22 3. Intentional Interference with Business Expectancy Claim Under Washington law, in order to establish a tortious interference claim, Parler must prove: (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) that 23 24 25 defendants had knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; (4) that defendants interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means; and (5) resultant damage. See Leingang v. 9