Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they could hire some mechanical turks from Africa to type prices into an Excel sheet for $5000.
Why Africa? Why not southern Wyoming?
[deleted]
Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
141–150 of 303 posts
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#142Jury Verdict: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18414221/457/ryanair-da... > Part E: Computer Fraud an Abuse Act Loss > Did Ryanair prove by a preponderance of evidence that it suffered actual economic harm caused by Booking.com violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if yes, state the amount. > X Yes _ No > $ 5000 > Part E Nominal Damages > $ 0 > Part F: Punitive Damages > $0 I know Rynair won the lawsuit…
Given the two possible outcomes:
1. Jury verdict is "NO" to CFAA violations.
2. Jury verdict is "YES" to CFAA violations and the jury award $0.
Is option (2) worse for Ryanair because it more negatively impacts any appeals process that they may have otherwise planned?
Does the award of $0 become a precedent which is stronger than option (1) in deterring would-be CFAA litigants of the future?
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where was the "defraud" happening here? When Ryanair wants to make money on flights they shouldn't offer flight tickets that only make money when they can lure the consumer to purchase addons via a boatload of dark patterns. This lawsuit is not about ryanair's pricing model, so that the company engages in bad practices is irrelevant to the court decision. What matters is that booking.com wants to earn money on sell…
I think parents point is: It’s only because of Ryan Airs business model of upselling via dark patterns that they care. And because of these dark patterns, parent as a consumer is willing to pay someone else to go through the booking process and avoid the dark pattern on their behalf. And the point is good: if company A is annoying to interact with, why can’t you pay company B to do it for you?
Isn't the issue that you can do that, but Company A can also add in a clause that you can only do business with us (or with this specific product/website/etc. we offer) if you agree to be buying the tickets for yourself and not for someone else. In which case, if Company B says they are, they are lying.
I think one interesting question from this is what happens when you put an AI in there instead. If Company B sells an AI that Person can use to interact with Company A, at what point does it count as Person's interaction and at what point does it count as Company A's interaction.
Obviously Person is allowed to use technology to interact on behalf of them. They are using Chrome, or IE, or Firefox, etc. This doesn't count as Google/Microsoft/Mozilla interacting with Company A. So on a continuum (likely multi dimensional) from internet browsers to what Booking.com did in this case, including AI somewhere in the continuum space, where is the legal limit?
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#144> A jury in the District Court of Delaware unanimously found that Booking.com violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse act and that it had induced a third party to access parts of Ryanair's website without authorisation "with an intent to defraud," the verdict said I imagine this is limited to a scenario where you: 1. Act as a middle-man for the transaction (as this lawsuit was about resale), 2. Interfere with pricing o…
We used to regulate air travel. It was a lot more expensive then.
[flagged]
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#145Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, basically, Ryanair is against free market. They want to have monopoly, to raise prices. Good for Ryanair, bad for consumers.
Ryanair wants to make it harder for consumer to compare prices.
And Ryanair wants to upsell you during the buying process, which they can't do as well, if you don't buy on their site.
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#147Did I miss something about what the term "internet piracy" means? From TFA:
> "We expect that this ruling will end the internet piracy and overcharging perpetrated on both airlines and other travel companies and consumers by the unlawful activity of OTA (online travel agent) Pirates," Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary said.
I thought piracy was distributing unauthorized copies of things like music and videos. Wouldn't booking.com's actions be closer to unauthorized ticket brokering?
I guess if you want to demonize someone for doing something you don't like it sounds worse to be labeled a "pirate" than an "unauthorized broker."
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#148Jury Verdict: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18414221/457/ryanair-da... > Part E: Computer Fraud an Abuse Act Loss > Did Ryanair prove by a preponderance of evidence that it suffered actual economic harm caused by Booking.com violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and, if yes, state the amount. > X Yes _ No > $ 5000 > Part E Nominal Damages > $ 0 > Part F: Punitive Damages > $0 I know Rynair won the lawsuit…
Given the two possible outcomes: 1. Jury verdict is "NO" to CFAA violations. 2. Jury verdict is "YES" to CFAA violations and the jury award $0. Is option (2) worse for Ryanair because it more negatively impacts any appeals process that they may have otherwise planned? Does the award of $0 become a precedent which is stronger than option (1) in deterring would-be CFAA litigants of the future?
You cannot have option 2; jury instructions required that CFAA requires >= $5k of damages. ("If your answer to that question is no, do not answer the remaining questions in Section 1").
So, damages of 5k is strictly the lowest amount possible while also answering YES for CFAA.
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#149> A jury in the District Court of Delaware unanimously found that Booking.com violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse act and that it had induced a third party to access parts of Ryanair's website without authorisation "with an intent to defraud," the verdict said I imagine this is limited to a scenario where you: 1. Act as a middle-man for the transaction (as this lawsuit was about resale), 2. Interfere with pricing o…
We used to regulate air travel. It was a lot more expensive then.
> We used to regulate air travel. It was a lot more expensive then.
I'm not sure this is the gotcha you think it is. Air travel, even in coach, was downright luxury compared to where it is today, and I'm not even talking about in the distant past, I'm talking about 25 or so years ago. Seats are narrower, legroom is practically nonexistent, and the seats only recline like two inches these days. Also almost everything is a la carte.
Re: Ryanair wins screen scraping case against Booking.com in US court ruling
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side if something goes wrong you get to discover what $RANDOM_VENDOR in $RANDOM_COUNTRY thinks is a reasonable policy for handling it, which is not usually a big risk for domestic USA travel, but for international travel can be a true wrench in the spokes.
Maybe but if $RANDOM_VENDOR isn't willing/able to help, I don't really expect Expedia to. That said, I do use an agent to arrange self-guided walking trips and things like that and they seem to be a useful resource rather than planning and booking the whole thing myself, in part, because a lot of local knowledge can be involved. But that's different from booking 5 nights in some European city.
I had a couple of times when car rentals and hotels decided to add surprise charges when I arrived. As those was booked through Expedia, the latter refunded me those immediately (and I suspect went and got them back from the vendor later)