191–200 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that part of a TOS is enforceable as it restricts speech. edit: No it doesn't, brain fart.
> I doubt that part of a TOS is enforceable as it restricts speech. Contractual restrictions on speech are enforceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t this matters, from a legal standpoint. The issue isn’t whether or not it’s what the customers wanted. The issue is that TPG wasn’t the party that entered into the agreement with AA when creating the account. I’m not suggesting it’s right or wrong, but that’s the issue.
If I authorize an agent to act on my behalf in a particular way wouldn't they be considered and authorized as me? If I make a contract with Bob to mow my lawn, it's not like Bob's workers or employees have to sign the contract too. TPG shouldn't need to be party to the contract to be an agent of one of the contracted parties.
So here we are. It should be fascinating to see where this goes.
> The LinkedIn dispute arose out of hiQ’s use of automated bots to scrape massive amounts of information from publicly available LinkedIn user profiles. Thus far, lower courts have sided with hiQ on grounds that certain information on the site is publicly available and could be accessed by the public without entering a password. [1]
There are similarities, however, different context in that in hiQ's case, information was publicly available, but in TPG's case the owner of that data (the AA customer) is providing them access to the data. The customer could just as well copy / download / screenshot the data, etc, and transfer it to TPG, obviously most people wouldn't bother, so that should be the core of the argument here. Is a user allowed to make their data available to a third-party? Screen-scraping is a means to an end
[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-scra...
I wrote a scraper for Air Canada's aeroplan program a few years ago. I wanted to track my points in my own custom native app. I probably had $10,000 worth of points in my account. One day I logged in to find out my account had been deactivated on suspicions of fraud. After several lengthy phone calls with their team (including sending them the node.js script I was using), I was able to get my account restored. For th…
I’ve been on the other side of this, defending against bots. Basically: Well-behaved and well-intentioned scraping bots are rare. You’d get a lot of users setting update rates to 60 seconds that did a new login every time and creating as much traffic as 1000 users. Then they’d release the script for integration with something people and suddenly you have 1000 people each creating 1000 times as many login requests as…
Unlike every other OECD country, the US does not have the English Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well first you're going to have to convince people to pay for the things they use. History has shown us they have practically zero interest in doing so. People would rather trade their attention for free stuff than their money for priced goods and services. The industry has grown out of this human behavior, not vv. [edit] Humans have a limited capacity for making purchasing decisions. This is why in 20+ years nobody…
While I agree that killing advertising is effectively impossible I'm not sure I agree that the problem is that people aren't willing to pay for things. I think advertising dollars paying for services that users use is a convenient excuse that companies use to justify it, but it isn't an imperative for why it should exist. If you can't get people to pay for your service when they know the real price maybe your service…
The GDPR, though having a massive enforcement problem, disallows targeted ads and all the privacy violations typically associated with them.
You could make websites liable for the ads they display, automatically killing the "bottom of the barrel" of advertising such as chumboxes (Outbrain/Taboola/etc) and similar low-quality trash because the cost to review & audit these ads would outweigh any potential profits.
You could revoke Section 230 protection for social media companies that manipulate the reach of content to increase engagement (which is why every social platform switched from a chronological feed to an algorithmic one) as to discourage the practice and prevent them from profiting off intentionally pushing harmful or even illegal content to increase engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was absolutely "for commercial purposes" for The Points Guy.
And where did TPG enter into a commercial relationship or affirmatively agree to these terms?
Gotta love Streisand Effect. I did not know TPG had an app, and now it’s on my Home Screen. Thanks, AA!
Just be aware that TPG is often harmful to consumers; they often tout credit card deals for cards with better sign-on bonuses if you go directly to the issuer; they were touting a 60k Amex Gold bonus when you could just go to Amex directly for 75k. They exist to drive CC referral revenue; if they can't get referral revenue for a card, they won't promote it. I'm a much bigger fan of https://www.doctorofcredit.com/ for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AA and all other US airlines argue that information about your customer account is part of a data set that belongs to them, so they set the terms by which the data may be accessed. It's in their terms of service. This isn't particularly unique to airlines either.
Can a company write "Chrome is not allowed to access this website" in their terms of service and then sue Google when customers still use it?
Gotta love Streisand Effect. I did not know TPG had an app, and now it’s on my Home Screen. Thanks, AA!
iphone only though. Apparently Android users aren't big enough market to bother.