this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
855 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

68190 readers
1758 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

Here is another video on the topic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ItiXffyTgQg. This individual is from the law firm working with Devin. He explains that this actually is likely to limit suits from consumers, but not for the class taking action, the creators.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

MegaLag has other videos coming. I would assume Honey is also selling a shit ton of purchasing behavior data

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Youtubers who had their affiliate links hijacked aren't subject to the EULA.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago (8 children)

According to Legal Eagle's video, Honey could be pocketing affiliate link money from creators that had never even anything to do with them.

It's installed on viewer's side, so it makes sense.

I'd also say there are probably limits to what you can enforce arbitration for, especially if you outright lied to your customers, but I am not American and I have no idea how irredeemably fucked up your customer protection laws are.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

That's the thing PayPal Honey is saying they are respecting the "last click" rule and in their eyes there is nothing illegal in that.

Even if the creator as nothing to do with honey they are saying the last click is in honey just before checkout so they get the money. I understand this is a terrible excuse but it seems that's the defense they will follow. Basically they are hiding behind that stupid last click rule and using it to justify it's perfectly legal.

Basically Honey says "we just strictly comply to a standard practice in affiliate links".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In this case the class action would be youtubers and other content creators not users of Honey.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Then it remains to be proven that it is illegal to poach affiliate links like that. Because Honey says they just follow strictly the "last click" rule that is common practice in the field.

It's bullshit but if that bullshit rule is indeed the standard practice then it will be hard to fight.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Could it not be seen as a deliberate deceit to avoid adequate compensation as per any sponsorship agreement though? Such practice can't be legal surely?

Even if they tried to weasel it into the terms of a sponsorship agreement one would assume it would be considered null as it goes against the very purpose of the contract?

Feel like Legal Eagle wouldn't waste their time and resources on a class action if they didn't have strong enough grounds for a fight? (And would instead make a video explaining why it would be pointless to do so)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›