Announcement, Charles, Law, Technology
comments 20

On My Lawsuit Against Amazon (Updated)

For people who like this sort of thing, I am pleased to present my lawsuit filed, in federal court in Seattle, a few weeks ago against Amazon (mentioned on my recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show). As longtime readers know, at one point I was one of the highest-ranking reviewers on Amazon, but they deplatformed me because of my awesome political views.

Here is the original complaint, which also explains the background. The suit proceeds in the usual way. Various interesting things are happening in this area of law, as you may have heard. My lawsuit is mostly a question, however, of personal honor, along with my intense megalomania and desire for fame.

Update 10/17/22: Here is Amazon’s September 2022 Motion to Dismiss. Here is my October 2022 response.

20 Comments

  1. SlowlyReading says

    Outstanding, but is there a missing word on page 6, line 27 of the complaint (between ‘their’ and ‘published’)?

    Pretty cool that it includes a “prayer for relief.” Did not know that prayers were used in court.

    • Van Olmstead says

      prayers are common in courts of equity. (That title is older than the one Biden is using to destroy society.)

  2. daiva says

    Entire three of numerous Yogi-isms fit in ↓
    💬 When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
    💬 It ain’t over till it’s over.
    💬 If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.
    😁

    Godspeed, may the force be with you! 💖

  3. Michael Nauer says

    I’d offer to hit the Patreon but that’d get frozen. Thanks for what you do and best to you and yours.

    • Charles Haywood says

      Thank you, and you are welcome. But there is no Patreon. I am fortunate enough to be indifferent to the money!

      • Colin McWay says

        Great read and good luck….Amazon is on the top of an ever-growing list of woke companies that have earned my dreaded “banned for life” rating

        I’d love for you to review my book “A Citizen on the Constitution Consent and Communism”. Let me know how I can get you a copy…

  4. Altitude Zero says

    Best of luck, and God bless. All woke corporations are evil, but Amazon is particularly evil. As someone said, Amazon has destroyed more small businesses than the Great Depression. Fight the Power!

  5. Scott Ryder says

    Page 4, line 12 mistakenly used the word statue instead of statute.

  6. Carlos Danger says

    What a nicely drafted complaint. Your book reviews were the best on Amazon, and we the public need them back. Whatever your motives, may you be a David who wins against Amazon’s Goliath.

  7. lhtness says

    If you’re wanting to use this lawsuit to bring more attention to this issue (and shamelessly self-promote), you may consider reaching out to David Freiheit (Viva Frei) and Robert Barnes (https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/), whose weekly livestreams have been covering lawsuits about big-tech censorship for a long time. I think Viva would be interested in doing a livestream with you about the suit.

  8. Ricky Moore says

    I refuse to use Amazon, so I really don’t care. And I don’t give a shit about your complaint, either. Shitty website run by shitty people doesn’t let you post your opinions, it’s dumb but it’s not criminal. I am unsubscribing, I don’t give a shit about any of this nonsense.

    • Charles Haywood says

      You seem nice. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  9. Hendrick Lorentz says

    Since the arbitrator sided with Amazon in 2019, why did Amazon agree to restore your access to post reviews?

    • Charles Haywood says

      They failed to reduce the arbitrator’s decision to a judgment within a year, so it has no preclusive effect.

  10. AwordFromNana says

    Congratulations on a well reasoned argument. You will need some luck to prevail in a left coast court. Absent that, faithful Americans will pray you have the fortitude to pursue your case and defend our rights all the way to the SCOTUS, where Section 230 should be overturned on it’s unconstitutional face.

    • Carlos Danger says

      I’m curious — why do you think Section 230 is unconstitutional? Is it 230(c)(1) (providing immunity against too little moderation)? Or 230(c)(2) (providing immunity against too much moderation)? Or both?

      While I have a big problem with content moderation by platform providers, I have no complaint with Section 230. To the contrary, I think it was wisely adopted and still provides valuable benefits.

  11. AwordFromNana says

    Section 230 is unconstitutional because it clearly states as much in the limitation on liability in (2)(A) for material the provider finds “objectionable…whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…”
    Allowing a “provider” to determine the meaning of a vague term like “objectionable” without applying a “reasonable” standard, and allowing “good faith” as a defense for disregarding the constitution is the reason big tech is able to abuse the unintended power they have been given by 230. The intent was to protect children, but the effect has been to generalize censorship based on political ideology, and even worse, to allow big tech to actually promote the sexualization and abuse of children based on the ideology of gender identity and their ability to censor those who oppose it. Charles is in the right and I pray that reason will help him to prevail and prove that the big tech “providers” cannot be allowed to abuse the constitution and censor based on political ideology. And by extension, we will be able to use reason and the constitution to protect our children as 230 intended.

  12. ElAlfonz says

    Good luck on getting past the papers (and to discovery). It would be very entertaining to see the emails of Amazon minions lamenting your use of “buffoon” in reference to Trump!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.