Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mentioned this in another comment, but I know from experience that it's impossible to reliably differentiate bots from humans over a network. And since the right to automate browsers has survived repeated legal challenges, all vendors can do is make it incrementally harder to weed out the low sophistication actors. This actually creates an evergreen problem that companies need to overcome, and our paid version will…
Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the kind of unethical behavior that our industry should frown upon IMO. I view this kind of thing on the same level as DDoS-as-a-Service companies. I wish your company the kind of success it deserves.
If anything, it's unethical for companies to dictate how their customers can access services they've already paid for. If I'm paying hundreds of thousands per year for software, shouldn't I be allowed to build automations over it? Instead, many enterprise products go to great lengths to restrict this kind of usage.
I led the team that dealt with DDoS and other network level attacks at Robinhood so I know how harmful they are. But I also got to see many developers using our services in creative ways that could have been a whole new product (example: https://github.com/sanko/Robinhood).
Instead we had to go after these people and shut them down because it wasn't aligned with the company's long term risk profile. It sucked.
That's why we're focused on authenticated agents for B2B use cases, not the kind of malicious bots you might be thinking of.