I can't tell if this is a good faith question, but in the interests of good discussion, there are many ways they can do this. Technical solutions include blocking the user agent, blocking request patterns, client-side feature detection, client-side attestation, but importantly they are not limited to technical solutions, there are also things like cease and desist letters, breaches of contracts, pressure on the software distributors, lawsuits.

This is no judgement of whether these are the steps they might take, or whether they would be right in doing so, I want to remain neutral on this. But I would point again to the many instances of things like this happening in the past.

Personally I think the technical solutions are unrealistic, given this is nothing but a safari wrapper.

Legal methods may be more successful.

Like most things.. it is a cat and mouse game dependent on how heavily they believe their revenue could be impacted. I am not sure why you think either of those corporates would have a problem of banning individual users, who are only suspected based on the app signature..

I agree on this, cat and mouse game

Detect usage patterns of normal users vs these, and then block access. Ultimately comes down to the companies' ability to throw however many devs at thwarting this one as makes sense for them.

Just as an example I remember, Facebook sponsored posts would be labeled, but if you dug into the HTML, what you'd get was random permutations or junk added to the label, like SSpoSnoSsorReD or something, and they'd use complicated overlays or other things to get the label to be visible. So you wouldn't just be able to use a simple easy rule.

There is a reason why Meta does not block ad blockers. It's costlier for them to lose users, even if they don't earn ad revenue off them.