All submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here
Honey browser plugin controversy: Difference between revisions
Style guide change, revert if this just looks worse. Â |
|||
(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | ==Background:== | ||
*[[Capital One]] faces a nearly identical lawsuit for the same practices. It appears as though this may be an âindustry standardâ 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 âsearching the webâ to find its user the best coupon code available for an item the user is shopping for online. | |||
Honey | 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. Â | ||
==Victim group 1: consumers== | |||
Honey promises consumers that it will âsearch the webâ for the âbest deals availableâ. 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 âbestâ 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 âsearch the webâ and tell the end user âsorry, there are no eligible coupon codes we could findâ. 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 âprotection moneyâ 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. Â | |||
== Victim | ==Victim group 3: online marketing affiliates and content creators== | ||
 | |||
 | |||
 | |||
<!-- Whole thing needs rewording to sound less like a journal piece --> Â | <!-- Whole thing needs rewording to sound less like a journal piece --> Â | ||
<!-- (This is the rewording) --> | <!-- (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 | 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 | 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 | 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 Honeyâs victims in this instance are | *''It is this practice in particular that has attracted legal attention, as several of Honeyâs victims in this instance are or were attorneys who create content about legal controversies (such as LegalEagle and Americaâs 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 --> | 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 -->== | ==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 | *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 | *Louis Rossmann's video explaining the scandal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjzI-8Rz2w | ||
* Original âBreakingâ story by creator MegaLag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk | *Original âBreakingâ 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 | *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:PayPal]] | ||
[[Category:Incidents]] | |||
[[Category:Articles based on videos]] |
Latest revision as of 11:45, 29 January 2025
Background:[edit | edit source]
- Capital One faces a nearly identical lawsuit for the same practices. It appears as though this may be an âindustry standardâ 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.
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 web browser (Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Safari, etc.), and it claims to work by âsearching the webâ 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[edit | edit source]
Honey promises consumers that it will âsearch the webâ for the âbest deals availableâ. This is contrast to how it works in reality, in which it search its own databases (a list of coupons) for coupon codes. In some cases, Honey finds a code and tells the end user. There is no guarantee, however, that Honey actually found that user the âbestâ discount code. On some occasions, Honey does manage to find discount codes that business owners never meant to make publicly available. More often than not, however, Honey will âsearch the webâ and tell the end user âsorry, there are no eligible coupon codes we could findâ. 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.
Victim group 2: business owners and digital storefronts[edit | edit source]
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 âprotection moneyâ 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.
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[edit | edit source]
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 launched by Wendover Productions.
- It is this practice in particular that has attracted legal attention, as several of Honeyâs victims in this instance are or were attorneys who create content about legal controversies (such as LegalEagle and Americaâs Attorney). They have documented their view on the lawsuit here: https://honeylawsuit.com/
Sources/Links:[edit | edit source]
- 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 âBreakingâ 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