Ryanair secures High Court injunction against screenscraper

8 December 2023

Ryanair has secured a permanent injunction in the High Court prohibiting a company from using bot technology to “screenscrape” the airline’s website to provide ticket booking information to online travel agencies.

The practice of screenscraping allows third-party online travel agencies (OTAs) to sell tickets for Ryanair flights despite the airline only officially selling tickets through its own website and mobile app.

According to Ryanair, many of these OTAs significantly overcharge for these flights and customers lose direct access to their flight booking information.

Dara Brady, commenting on behalf of Ryanair, said: “We welcome this High Court ruling which established that this screenscraper is bound by the terms of use of the Ryanair website, which prohibits screenscraping.

“Ryanair has been granted a permanent injunction to stop this unlawful screencraping of Ryanair’s data in breach of Ryanair’s terms of use. The Ryanair website is the only website authorised to sell Ryanair flights.”

He added: “OTAs have for years relied upon screenscrapers (such as Flightbox), fake customer accounts, single-use payment cards and fake customer email addresses to make bookings on Ryanair’s website in breach of the terms of use.

“This can cause huge inconvenience and expense to customers as often OTAs not only overcharge for fares, bags and seats, but they also block customers from managing their bookings or receiving important flight updates from Ryanair (such as online check-in reminders).

“This historic High Court ruling has reinforced Ryanair’s determination to pursue justice for our customers to ensure they get access to the lowest fares, cannot be overcharged by OTAs, and that they have direct access to manage their bookings and to receive up to date flight information.

“Ryanair does not have a commercial relationship with any OTA or screenscraper and we strongly object to OTAs mis-selling our flights and overcharging consumers.”

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...