Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Categories
Random page
Top Contributors
Recent changes
Contribute
Create a page
How to help
Wiki policy
Adapt videos to articles
Articles in need of work
Help
Frequently asked questions
Join the discord!
Help about MediaWiki
Consumer_Action_Taskforce
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Honey browser plugin controversy
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Purge cache
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Cargo data
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Background:== *[[Capital One]] faces a nearly identical lawsuit for the same practices. It appears as though this may be an “industry standard” predatory tactic that is more pervasive across coupon extensions en masse which may merit its own page. It may be the case that '''most''' coupon-searching browser extensions behave identically in this regard. [[PayPal Honey|Honey]] is owned by [[PayPal]], which was recently featured in a few online investigations for its business practices. It is a tool that you can install in your [[wikipedia:Web_browser|web browser]] ([[Google Chrome]], [[Mozilla Firefox]], [[Microsoft Edge]], [[Safari]], etc.), and it claims to work by “searching the web” to find its user the best coupon code available for an item the user is shopping for online. Honey states that it works by looking at the checkout page of an online store and searching the internet to find a coupon code for that website, finding and testing discount codes for your item. The implication is that if it is unable to find a better coupon code, one does not exist. Honey, however, has been found to often not find the best coupons and deals for its users. ==Victim group 1: consumers== Honey promises consumers that it will “search the web” for the “best deals available”. This is contrast to how it works in reality, in which it search its own databases (a list of coupons) for coupon codes.<!-- citation needed, and maybe reword for neutrality --> In some cases, Honey finds a code and tells the end user. There is no guarantee, however, that Honey actually found that user the “best” discount code. On some occasions, Honey does manage to find discount codes that business owners never meant to make publicly available<!-- cit needed -->. More often than not,<!-- citation needed, or remove quantitative claim --> however, Honey will “search the web” and tell the end user ‘sorry, there are no eligible coupon codes we could find’. This level of inconsistency makes it hard to trust Honey to do the job they promise to do. Further searches for lawsuits with similar claims leads to a very similar suit against Capital One regarding similar practices, contributing to what may be a pattern among these "coupon-finding" browser extensions.<!-- Instead of 'furtehr searches for...', just state the existence of other lawsuits, and reference appropriately --> ==Victim group 2: business owners and digital storefronts== Additionally, PayPal offers business owners a program where they can partner with Honey, for a monthly fee (PayPal makes money). Business owners who choose to pay this “protection money” receive a guarantee that Honey will only show the discount codes they want it to show. There are documented instances of business owners finding what they thought were 'private' or 'one-time' discount codes being used by Honey users, building a strong incentive to "formally partner" with Honey and give PayPal its protection racket. <!-- Needs changing/rewording to be understood without describing tony soprano - these kinds of analogies may be used in theme articles, but are not appropriate elsewhere --> <!-- I made it sound less like Tony Soprano but I still don't know if this works --> This is analogous to a store being forced to pay a fee in order to have their desired prices be seen, as opposed to having their lowest possible price being displayed if the fee is not payed. ==Victim group 3: online marketing affiliates and content creators== <!-- Whole thing needs rewording to sound less like a journal piece --> <!-- (This is the rewording) --> Affiliate marketing is a revenue-sharing model in which individuals or entities (affiliates) partner with companies to earn money for advertising goods and services. This is done through the use of personalized links to track which affiliate sent which customers to an online store. If a customer makes a purchase using an affiliate link, the affiliate whose link was used gets a commission on the sale. Honey disrupts this practice by replacing an existing affiliate link with their own on the checkout page, whenever a customer interacts with the extension in search of coupons. It does this even when it is unable to find a coupon for the customer. When the customer makes their purchase, Honey takes credit for the sale and gets the commission. The Honey extension was largely advertised by content creators on [[YouTube]] as well as other social-media platforms. Affiliate marketing can make up a significant portion of a content creator's revenue. Most of the influencers who promoted Honey were unaware of its practices and thus unknowingly promoted a browser extension that poaches their affiliate revenue. Estimates of "stolen" revenue are upwards of 5 million USD. The discovery of Honey's practices has led to a [[class action lawsuit|class-action lawsuit]] launched by Wendover Productions. *''It is this practice in particular that has attracted legal attention, as several of Honey’s victims in this instance are or were attorneys who create content about legal controversies (such as LegalEagle and America’s Attorney). They have documented their view on the lawsuit here: https://honeylawsuit.com/''<!-- this is a very partisan source - we shouldn't be saying 'find out more' and then linking to one half of a lawsuit. Instead, try and find some media source which has a reasonable detail of reporting on the lawsuit. In general though, we shouldn't even be saying to the reader 'hey, do this!' in any capacity --> ==Sources/Links:<!-- needs reworking into a proper references section. also, not appropriate to signppost people to join a class action. have edited the introduction to the link to reflect this -->== *Link to the formal class action filing: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2024cv09470/441974 *Louis Rossmann's video explaining the scandal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjzI-8Rz2w *Original “Breaking” story by creator MegaLag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk *LegalEagle's explanation of their class action lawsuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY *Indepth legal information and lawyer interviews from GamersNexus investigation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKbFBgNuEOU [[Category:PayPal]] [[Category:Incidents]] [[Category:Articles based on videos]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Consumer_Action_Taskforce are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (see
Consumer Action Taskforce:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)