Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 34 Filed 01/21/21 Page 11 of 14 1 2 In support of its claim to irreparable injury, Parler alleges that AWS’s suspension or termination renders Parler unable to deliver the services it promises its users, and “entirely 3 unable to function online.” Mot. at 5. Furthermore, Parler claims, the actions are a direct blow to 4 its mission and reputation, and has caused a loss of user loyalty, advertising revenue, and the 5 ability to raise capital. In short, Parler alleges, these actions have threatened it with “extinction.” 6 Rep. Br. at 11. 7 The injuries Parler alleges in its Complaint and its motion may be irreparable. See hiQ 8 9 Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir. 2019)(“The threat of being driven out 10 of business is sufficient to establish irreparable harm.”)(citing Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass 11 Commc'ns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1985)). But in Winter, the Supreme Court 12 explicitly rejected the “possibility” of irreparable harm as “too lenient” to support a preliminary 13 injunction, and in the hearing the Court held on this motion, AWS vigorously disputed that 14 Parler has shown that its extinction is “likely” in the absence of an injunction. See Winter, 555 15 U.S. at 22; Trans. 1/14/21 Hrg., Dkt. No. 33, 15:8-23. The Court makes no finding on this issue, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 but notes that Parler’s claims to irreparable harm are substantially diminished by its admission “that much of that harm would be compensable by damages.” Rep. Br. at 11. Parler’s showing of a likelihood of irreparable injury, particularly in light of its failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, is insufficient to support a preliminary injunction. D. “Serious Questions Going to the Merits” and “Balance of Hardships” 23 24 25 In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff may alternatively be awarded an injunction where it has raised “serious questions” going to the merits of its claims, and the balance of hardships, as between the two parties, “tips sharply” in its favor. See Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1134-35 (“A 11