Airline granted judgment in default of appearance in proceedings concerning ‘screen scraping’ of its website

Airline complains about a company scraping its data from its website – data ends up on certain online travel agents' websites, contrary to airline’s wishes – known as “screen scraping” – airline says the company accesses the airline website through the use of automated software and then takes airline data and information without its consent or authority – in separate Polish proceedings the same company admits screen scraping the airline’s website but pleads that it is entitled to do so as a matter of competition law – in the instant case, the airline says that that it is not possible to screen scrape its website without entering a “click wrapped” agreement with it via its terms of use – the Court found that the company were bound by the airline's terms of use because it is not possible to obtain PFT data from the Airline’s website without agreeing to the terms of use - the existence and timing of the Polish proceedings does not displace this Court's jurisdiction to deal with the Plaintiff's application – Irish High Court has "priority seisin" of the proceedings under Brussels I Recast - the Polish courts have to date declined jurisdiction in favour of the Irish courts - the Irish High Court has been hearing separate applications by the same Airline against companies based in other Member States since 2017 - Court found that Ryanair has a strong substantive case against the company - strong claim for breach of contract - the company is bound by Airline’s Terms of Use which prohibit screen scraping – Court found that the company is screen scraping Ryanair's data and breaching its Terms of Use - Irish courts are appropriately seized and have jurisdiction to hear the matter under regulation 1215/2012 - the proceedings have been served upon the company - no appearance has been entered and Airline has met the technical requirements of the rules for leave to enter judgment and Order 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the provisions of Brussels I Recast apply - Plaintiff has proven “substantial risk of danger – Court accepted airline’s submission that its affidavits show that unless an injunction in granted the company will continue to breach the Airline’s Terms of Use – Court made an order pursuant to Order 11D of the Rules of the Superior Courts granting the Plaintiff leave to enter judgment as against the defendant - Defendant failed to file an appearance – Court granted the specific reliefs sought including injunction – damages to be dealt with at a later date.