There are two obvious issues, as I see it. #1 is whether someone's liable for poking around inside the Kayak app in the way the author of the post did. #2 is wh

There are two obvious issues, as I see it. #1 is whether someone's liable for poking around inside the Kayak app in the way the author of the post did. #2 is whether it's legal to "open-source" the API by disclosing this information, once obtained. My quick take is that #1 likely violates Kayak's terms of use for the app, its web site, or both. The TOU for the website has a host of prohibitions, including don't "bypass or circumvent other measures employed to prevent or limit access to Our Website," no deep-linking (such as a link to the API endpoint), and as a catchall also prohibits all inappropriate-as-defined-by-Kayak activity. I haven't read the app TOU, but it would be standard practice to prohibit reverse engineering of the app itself. So we don't really need to reach point #2, which raises some 1A issues the first doesn't. (Note I'm excluding DMCA and CFAA issues because Kayak isn't our sue-happy friends at the MPAA or RIAA.) As a practical matter, though, the author of the linked post, Shubhro Saha, appears to be an undergrad, so is probably judgment-proof and not the most likely target of litigation.