[awinter-py]

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice; but my instinct is you won't get in trouble.

Most important argument: the chrome user-agent contains the word 'mozilla'. Obviously (we argue) google isn't intending these to be accurate and instead are some kind of compatibility mark.

Are you committing trademark violation? Given the nature of trademarks, it's not clear that you are.

Are you misrepresenting yourself to the site in a way that violates the CFAA? This is probably your biggest area of risk. But you can argue the site is giving away information to google, a company whose slogan until recently was 'free the world's information'. Therefore they weren't taking plausible steps to secure the information you've scraped.

[mandude]

What is Google's slogan these days?

[JBReefer]

"Tremble in fear before us."

[yrro]

"Cower, brief mortals"

[rch]

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

[awinter-py]

'stayin alive, stayin alive'? They've done surprisingly well transitioning to mobile & promoted their android guy to CEO, but haven't been able to diversify revenue away from ads. And people are starting to hate ads.

[pacala]

They fired their android guy. They gave android to their chrome guy and made him the CEO.

[mrkgnao]

"When the time comes, add an adblocker to your browser. This will put an end to the whole affair."

[UnpossibleJim]

Speaking of law, and in the modern times this is in the theory of law, not practice, but intent is supposed to count. Now, that being said, the people at the level of the court systems are woefully ignorant of technology and IT more specifically. Intent seems to hold up only those rich enough to push very hard for it and prosecuting attorneys seem to get erections at the thought of putting someone in jail for even the perception of a cyber crime, these days, so.... 50/50 maybe =P