DaviddesJ

Yes. It will work for me, I'm more likely to give up using my GPUs for international travel (where availability is low and I had to search many dates, and where you need to know in advance which flights have availability so you book the right fares), and just use them domestically (where it's usually pretty easy to find ways to use them for friends and family). I can't complain about the value that UA is giving me, I'm still getting around $400 per GPU just using them domestically, it's just irritating.

UA-NYC

No shortage of "us" who used them to upgrade from C to F previously on 3 cabin PMUA routes (steering paid J biz to UA away from competitors). That demand goes away now.

Also, there are Y/B int'l flyers out there who would be considered HVF (or at least MVF), but still used GPUs to upgrade into biz.

On this, we strongly agree ^

sbm12

FWIW, here's what a C&D letter from UA looks like: http://media.wandr.me/ProtonCeaseDesist.pdf.

For those who have asked here about the licensing aspect of things I can only share my own personal experiences, but I was told in no uncertain terms that licensing the data was NOT an option. Full stop. Yes, they continue to say in public that a licensing agreement is the only thing needed but United is unwilling to engage in discussions about terms or possibilities. And I've asked multiple times.

I also found it somewhat interesting that they continued to insist that the only way I could have accessed the data was through a united.com URL. That is not what I did. When they asked me to give them more details on what I was doing I respectfully declined. I'm awaiting feedback from my legal counsel about compliance or not based on that aspect of the situation but I expect that part of my tools site to go offline later today pending further discussions with said counsel.

I am not surprised that I received the letter. I'm only slightly disappointed that it took them as long as it did to bother.

But I am very, very disappointed that they continue to insist I'm doing something which I very much am not and that they refuse to have real conversations about the possible licensing of the data despite the public stance so often repeated.

dmodemd

...and UA would implement blocking of these calls citing this was an unauthorized service that is excessively consuming their resources.

UA-NYC

Thanks for sharing. Truly disappointing action by UA, yet continually & wholly unsurprising.

"Texas law" indeed

Seth - if you set up a Fund Anything campaign for legal funds, I'll contribute as I'm sure many others would as well. Fight the good fight!

DaviddesJ

I can just imagine that they would make everyone listen to a recorded message every time you call UA and "press 1 to accept the terms and conditions" before you could proceed.

qisu

unfortunately united IT is in the stone ages. i doubt anyone can figure out how to scale the beast that is SHARES. besides, united does not really care about what customers demand.

DaviddesJ

I've got plenty of money for good causes, but this is a losing battle because the law isn't on his side. It's bad for customers and their business for UA to do this, but they are within their rights.

DaviddesJ

I know people who could do it, but you would have to pay them Silicon Valley wages.

star_world

The language above seems to be quite carefully worded. If you're not accessing the data through united.com, the TOS shouldn't apply to you. The fact that you are accessing the data in some other way, but yet you expect that you're going to comply with the C&D letter, certainly implies that you are effectively doing the same thing - using another United-owned domain name, perhaps? Or channeling the requests through another entity so you can argue that you are only making the requests to that entity (and therefore the TOS don't apply to you?)

The "doing something which I very much am not" certainly sounds like a red herring, based on the points above - if you're not doing "something" then you could have just shredded their letter by now; instead you indicate above that you're planning to comply.

As for the point about licensing - maybe they just don't want to license the data to you? They're under no obligations to offer the same agreement (or any agreement) to every (or any) party - without knowing the details of every discussion they've had with every party regarding licensing, it's impossible to know whether this is something that would even be considered. Too many people are too quick to jump to conclusions around here.

In summary, it sounds like this outcome was inevitable, the only real question was how long it would take. I'd be very amused to see what the would-be donors to your legal fund would be donating for - the TOS really couldn't be any clearer. There's no case whatsoever.

sbm12

I am complying for now, pending advice from my legal counsel, because I don't want to get mired in a stupid legal battle with United. They have far more resources on this front than I do.

At no time in the process of collecting the data do I see mention of the united.com ToS/legal link. And I am not using any 3rd party services.

If they're going to claim that I'm stealing fare data then it would be nice for them to show that I'm actually doing so. That would be impossible because I know I'm not. I am accessing award data, but not in the manner in which they've asserted. And, AFAIK, they cannot figure out how I'm doing it.

Are you willing to pay my legal bills when they come after me?

You're correct that I cannot know about every discussion with every other party. But I did ask if it was just about me and they said no. Maybe they just wanted to make me feel better but I don't think that's the case.

star_world

Don't forget that it's not just the website itself; if you're using a MP account as part of the data collection then this would also apply to you:

(from https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...s/default.aspx)

It's pretty broad language, and the repercussions aren't as strong as they are for violations of the united.com TOS, but this could also be used to repeatedly close any / all accounts that were being used (if indeed this is part of how the data is being collected).

Fare data is very widely available - and in much easier ways than pulling it from the United website

Award data is a different matter entirely, but I suspect you know that.

Of course not - I can tell the difference between someone walking a very fine line and someone who is 100% in the right

Don't take this as any sort of attack or criticism by the way - your tools have been a huge benefit to many people in this community - but sooner or later this was going to happen!

mahasamatman

United, like many other large companies, use this tactic as a threat because they know they can easily outlast the funds of 99.99% of all people. Even if it's baseless (and I'm sure in many cases it is), it costs them nothing at all to write a letter like this and bully the "small guy". We can credit the failed United States legal system (note that I intentionally do not use the term "justice system") for these tactics.

Vulcan

Could'nt Seth just, um, move to, um, "another North American country" and contine to provide these services from there?

LaserSailor

So I have to do 6 searches in Expert mode to see award R upgrade availability for travel once a year.