The relevant word is "you". In this case, TPG (who provided an app) is not "you". That would instead be the AAdvantage (AA's reward program) member, who agreed

The relevant word is "you". In this case, TPG (who provided an app) is not "you". That would instead be the AAdvantage (AA's reward program) member, who agreed to the TOS originally, and who provided their login information to the TPG app so that it can scrape information about rewards etc. So... the lawsuit from AA's side seems pretty bizarre, if the facts as presented in this article are true. If AA wanted to stop this, presumably they should sue their own rewards members who use the TPG app. But obviously that won't happen. So fundamentally, this seems a case of whether the toolmaker is liable for an individual using their tool in a TOS-violating way. Which seems pretty insane, if AA wins. If I pull open Chrome developer tools after logging into a website that requires me not to inspect its source, why would Google be liable? --- And as a side note, "Because privacy and security" is quickly becoming the corporate anti-interoperability equivalent of "Think of the children." The default should be that scraping is allowed. If companies actually care about privacy and security, then they can offer an API and encourage access through it. But limiting scraping and not offering API access (or intentionally crippling it) is bullshit.