>occupation (teachers get educational discounts on some software, even when they only use it at home) //
Suppose they say "teachers" and you have a teaching license but aren't currently teaching. You present your teaching license and say "is this acceptable" and they say yes, you only need a teaching license to get the discount.
That seems pretty analogous to the current situation. You possess the token they request and that they subsequently use to give you a lower price. You've not committed fraud because you're legally allowed to use that UA string. It's up to the provider to decide if their requirement is "passes us this UA string" or "declares ownership of this device" (I don't consider those things identical by a long stretch).
Now if they say when you pass a particular UA string "do you confirm you're owner of $deviceType" or "this service is only for users of $deviceType" then I think things switch around in the direction of [rather minor] fraud.
Suppose they say "teachers" and you have a teaching license but aren't currently teaching. You present your teaching license and say "is this acceptable" and they say yes, you only need a teaching license to get the discount.
That seems pretty analogous to the current situation. You possess the token they request and that they subsequently use to give you a lower price. You've not committed fraud because you're legally allowed to use that UA string. It's up to the provider to decide if their requirement is "passes us this UA string" or "declares ownership of this device" (I don't consider those things identical by a long stretch).
Now if they say when you pass a particular UA string "do you confirm you're owner of $deviceType" or "this service is only for users of $deviceType" then I think things switch around in the direction of [rather minor] fraud.