Ryanair has failed in its pre-trial attempt to have Skyscanner’s counterclaim and parts of its defence dismissed in proceedings brought by the airline alleging the price comparison site is unlawfully “screen scraping” data from its website.
In a lengthy judgment, the High Court’s Mr Justice Michael Quinn said it would be unsafe to accede to Ryanair’s request for the strikeout of Skyscanner’s counterclaim and a competition plea in its defence.
Skyscanner and two associated companies should be allowed to advance its defence and counterclaim at a full hearing of the proceedings, in which the airline seeks to restrain the defendants from allegedly facilitating the sale of the airline’s flights through other online agents such as lastminute.com and kiwi.com.
Ryanair alleges Skyscanner uses automated software to scrape for commercial gain information such as flight prices and timetables from the airline’s website. It says this is a breach of the use of the terms of its website and its intellectual property rights.
Skyscanner denies it is engaged in the activities alleged and denies it has offered Ryanair products for sale.
In its counterclaim, Skyscanner seeks various declarations and damages for alleged infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union due to the airline allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market.
Ruling on the recent pre-trial application, Mr Justice Quinn said Ryanair claimed it was fundamentally inconsistent for Skyscanner to deny it is engaged in screen scraping while simultaneously alleging the airline is contravening Article 102 by not sharing its flight data for purposes other than price comparison.
The judge said there is “no rule precluding a defendant from relying on alternative defences”. He ruled that, for the purposes of this preliminary application, the screen scraping activity alleged by Ryanair cannot be conclusively established.
Mr Justice Quinn noted the law relating to screen scraping is in a “state of development”.
“To expect the defendants to relinquish their right to put the plaintiff on proof of such a complex and serious allegation, by availing of a conventional and permissible mode of pleading in the alternative, is a step too far,” he added.
He also refused the airline’s motion seeking a modular trial, which would have involved the proceedings being broken up into defined stages.
Mr Justice Quinn said the airline did not demonstrate that its application was brought in the interest of saving court time, and the time and costs of the parties, as distinct from serving its own “strategic interests”.
The matter can now proceed to a full “lengthy” trial, he said.
