YouTuber LegalEagle sues PayPal over 'sleeping leech' Honey extension | TechCrunch

Before I even clicked it I knew there would be no real journalism involved. It's just parroting the video the LegalEagle put out, so if you'd rather give your click to the creator, just watch the Youtube video, and don't bother with the techcrunch "article".

As much as I enjoy watching LTT content, I have to speak out about how they realized Honey was fucking them and then said NOTHING to their audience or to other YouTubers. I think that is just plain shitty of them and has put a sour taste in mouth with their content now. If they did say something, I apologize. I just haven’t seen it since the only “social media” I use is this singular one, Lemmy.

The very first time I saw an ad for Honey I knew there had to be a catch. Nothing is ever free.

It wasn't immediately obvious how they were going to make money, though. I figured they'd just sell gather and sell user data. I had completely forgotten about affiliate links. But they probably also sell your data for good measure.

I agree that Honey is a sleazy extension, but should I be worried that if they lose, it will set a bad precedent? From the video, the Honey extension works by injecting a Honey referral code into all online shopping transactions, possibly overwriting whatever influencer referral code the user was under. If Honey loses, the court decision is likely to say that an extension creator is liable if they tamper with referral codes and tracking links.

This will be a problem for privacy extensions that strip out tracking cookies and referral URLs, since they are also messing with influencer attribution, though not for profit but at the request of the user.

Saved you a click

Among other accusations, MegaLag said that if a YouTuber or other creator promotes a product through an affiliate link, if the viewer has installed Honey, the extension will surreptitiously substitute its own link when the viewer makes a purchase — even if Honey didn’t provide any discounts. That means Honey, not the creator, receives the affiliate revenue for the transaction.

Reminds me of Opera GX with their sponsors and everyone used their browser.

Honey has in its terms of services that you accept not to take part in a class action lawsuit and favor arbitration. It seems like these kind of clause is enforceable usually so I'm curious to see how Legal Eagle will navigate the issue.

Edit: Either the creators sue Honey and they will argue it is not illegal to poach affiliate links because they follow the "last click" rule that is standard (it's just that they pushed it to the extreme).

Or its the users that are scammed because they were told the best coupon would be used. But if it's the users, they are under the EULA and should have to comply with the no class action rule.

I'm not a lawyer but this is how I understand the setup for this trial to be.

I am up to speed on this little drama, but it’s still unclear to me what they’re suing over.

Yea, Honey effectively took over affiliate links. And yes, they were obviously shady (I never used it, because I did not know how they made money). But I don’t quite understand how other people trying to make money from affiliate links have a real claim against them.

Or is this just a case of the influencers realizing they have the moral high ground and the public’s ear, and wanting a pay out?