"Partly" reminds me of LinkedIn's case against hiQ > The LinkedIn dispute arose out of hiQ’s use of automated bots to scrape massive amounts of information fro

"Partly" reminds me of LinkedIn's case against hiQ > 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-scraps-linkedin-data-scraping-decision https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-scra...