29 ms·
The Safeway API in question requires a user to be logged-in, authorized, and have explicitly agreed to a TOS (clickwrap). The HiQ v. LinkedIn case was centered
by meritt 7y ago
The Safeway API in question requires a user to be logged-in, authorized, and have explicitly agreed to a TOS (clickwrap). The HiQ v. LinkedIn case was centered around publicly accessible content which did not require the user to be authenticated nor have explicitly agreed to a TOS (browsewrap is not enforceable).
I'd argue the above case does not apply here.
- henryfjordan 7y agoahhh, yeah that is certainly quite distinct. Thanks for pointing that out. HiQ v Linkedin kind of hinges on the implicit authorization given by making an API public. Here Safeway gave explicit authorization so I suppose it might come down to the TOS. Then again all Safeway has to do is revoke your account and you're gone, so I don't really know why anyone would be to worried about them coming after you with the CFAA. Cant be worth the effort.