On 9 October 2012 the Spanish Supreme Court ruled on the dispute between Ryanair Ltd and Atrápalo, S.A., a Spanish online travel agency using a screen scraper software on Ryanair's website. The Court confirmed previous instances decisions that dismissed Ryanair's claim based on copyright infringement of a database, infringement of a sui generis or standalone database right, and unfair competition. Proved facts were as follows: Atrápalo regularly enters  Ryanair's website as a mere user. By means of a screen scraper software that reads the search patterns of the Ryanair website, Atrápalo extracts the information on flights its own user is requesting through Atrápalo's website and provides it, omitting that such information is scraped from Ryanair's website. Atrápalo collects not only time details, but also prices as displayed in Ryanair's website. To such such prices Atrápalo adds a cut (its profit). Ryanair offers a whole range of complementary services to anyone who navigates through Ryanair's website searching for a flight. The terms and conditions regulating the use of Ryanair websites include a prohibition to use screen scrapers and use of the websites with a commercial purpose.

Based very much exhaustively on the CJEU's interpretation of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases (cases C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd, The Scottish Premier League Ltd, The Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH and Sportradar AG; C-545/07 Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD; C-444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou; C-338/02 Fixtures Marketing Board Ltd v Svenska Spel AB, C-203/02 British Horseracing Board and Others, etc.), the findings of the Court are as follows:

• Ryanair does not have a database protected under Article 12.2 Spanish Copyright Act (as implemented by Articles 1(2) and Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9). The Court declares that there is not a proper database (no collection of independent data), but a software that generates the information requested under the parameters introduced by the user (that is, a software that provides the best price for the flight the user is looking for, considering a range of variable factors). In the hypothetical case that the Court accepted Ryanair's allegation on the existence of a database, in no case it could be accepted that such hypothetical database's structure meets the originality necessary to be protected. Indeed, the selection and arrangement comes from a software, says the Court. Ryanair defended that, in contrast, the Regional Court of Hamburg had declared in Ryanair v Cheaptickets of 26 February 2010 that Ryanair did have a database.
• There is not a sui generis right in a database, as Ryanair's substantial investment was not directed to collect data: it was directed to create a software that generates information under the parameters introduced by the user of Ryanair's website. That is, the investment refers ultimately to creation of information, but not to its collection, verification or presentation.

Importantly, the Court refers to violation of contractual law and unfair competition as follows:

• The Court concludes that there is no contractual relationship between Atrápalo and Ryanair and therefore no violation of a contract exists. The Court accepts that the supply of or the access to information on flights could be subject to a contract under the Spanish law, but it considers that the use of the Ryanair website –- free to anyone who types the URL address –- does not entail a consent to enter into such a contract. Therefore Ryanair failed to prove Atrápalo's consent to enter into its terms and conditions to navigate through its website – despite the latter using the website through a screen scraper, expressly forbidden by such terms and conditions. The situation then, as viewed by the Court, is that Atrápalo carried out something not allowed by Ryanair in a contract to which it did not consent and so no violation of the contract could exist. The Court noted that Ryanair acknowledged that it does not apply proper (technical) means to prevent travel agencies to use their websites.
• Based on procedural reasons, the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits regarding unfair competition. But such is nonetheless rejected by the lower court (Court of Appeals). Ryanair argues that Atrápalo is free-riding on its effort to create a potent and liable software that optimizes flight information according to users' requests. By the screen scraping, Atrápalo is also diverting users away from Ryanair's website where a range of different complementary services are offered to whom is looking for a cheap flight (car rentals, hostels, etc.) causing loss of profits to Ryanair. The Appeals Court believes there is no unfair advantage of Ryanair's repute (as argued by Ryanair's lawyers); and Atrápalo or other travel agencies do not need an authorisation from  Ryanair for exercising their intermediary's role as there is no legal right that would support this. Nor is a bad faith conduct, as Atrápalo is not affecting the normal functioning of the market or altering the market's competitive structure. Indeed, it is beneficial for users and therefore helps in keeping and fostering the free competition of the current economic order.