American Airlines is alleging 12 legal claims:

1. Breach of Contract 2. Tortious Interference with a Contract 3. Unfair Competition by Misappropriation 4. Trespass 5. Trademark infringement 6. Dilution 7. Dilution under Texas State Law 8. False Designation of Origin 9. Copyright Infringement 10. CFAA 11. Violation of Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act 12. Unjust Enrichment

IMO it would serve the common person well if we changed the way the law works so that if a corporation sues you for a laundry list of things, if a single claim gets thrown out, then they all do. That prevents this insane pile-on where a half-afternoon's work by 4 people in their giant legal department turns into a multi-year nightmare for an average citizen. I think that would be a fair way to reign in the corporate "throw everything at the wall, see what sticks, or at least hope we intimidate this regular Joe into submission" approach that's all too common today.

Meh, Red Ventures' estimated $11 billion valuation is slightly more than AA's market cap.

While I agree with sentiment, I don't agree with the premise or the method. Corporations aren't the only ones stacking charges. Prosecutors and private citizens (usually operating pro se) are just as capable of frivolous litigation. The best action a judge can and should take is to dismiss the meritless claims before proceed to court phase.

Then they would just send you 12 consecutive lawsuits. If they're that big and well-funded, they've got the time.

But can't they still do that right now? So parents proposal would make the situation a tiny bit better?

Generally no. The reason you see a 12 claim filing is because they don't get unlimited do overs. You get some chances to amend the complaint, but once it starts moving forward, that's it.

Judges, courts, and basically everyone (including most defendants) would rather have one hearing than 12.

That also happens when county prosecutors are up for re-election. Stack charges in case the jury finds one claim weak, there are 5 synonyms for the same underlying crime that the jury is willing to convict on. Also helps with forcing plea bargains.

Curious how Breach of Contract can fly, considering TPG never agreed to a contract with AA to begin with. And AA is obviously not suing their own customers.

> Curious how Breach of Contract can fly, considering TPG never agreed to a contract with AA to begin with

AA presents an argument for the ToS binding TPG as a party.

There's a ToS, which is a contract.

From the AA website: "By logging in, you accept the AAdvantage terms and conditions"

Yeah, but it would seem that the points guy ISN'T logging in. The AA customers are logging in using a tool provided by TPG.

> but it would seem that the points guy ISN'T logging in. The AA customers are logging in using a tool provided by TPG.

AA provides a number of arguments against that. That's part of the dispute.

Do you think TPG has never logged into AA during the development of this tool?

Some of these are serious, like the CFAA claim, some are genuinely hilarious. Dilution? Really? Unfair competition? Are they accusing TPG of creating an airline?

RIP password managers then, I guess

Yes. And iCloud-based Safari-storage of passwords for all iPhone users.

And every piece of financial software that does anything with your banking information.

> Speculating, but TOS generally say that you're not allowed to share your password with anyone. Assuming that's true for the AA site, AA might argue that TPG is encouraging users to break their TOS ("tortious interference").

They specifically claim it's presenting something that is intentionally confusingly similar to an official AA logon screen using copyrighted and trademarked AA content to harvest customer username and password info, does not prominently note it's nonaffiliation with AA, and directly violates the TOS itself, as well as arguing tortious interference, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and violation of the CFAA and the Texas equivalent.

They also note a similar dispute settled with a separate firm owned by the same parent before TPG tried to negotiate a deal with AA for permission to access customer data for this purpose and was turned down.

So I wonder what if any legal difference there would be if TPG was only providing a web app that runs in the browser.

Also, would there be any legal difference if they wrote a browser plug-in/extension that provides additional information while you're logged into AA's site?

What if their plug-in advertises for competitors or defames AA or navigates the user immediately away? It's hard to argue it is still a browser/user-agent if it changes or editorializes somebody else's content beyond a certain point.

I doubt that part of a TOS is enforceable as it restricts speech.

edit: No it doesn't, brain fart.

> I doubt that part of a TOS is enforceable as it restricts speech.

Contractual restrictions on speech are enforceable.

For a simpler example, think of NDAs

What law says someone can't restrict free speech?