Board 8 > PSA: Uninstall Honey (or other "finds coupon codes" apps/extensions)

(+) Yeah! (+)

most care about data harvesting but if rakuten can save them like 10% then i mean, they cave quick. on the consumer side the biggest issue is the fact that they withheld coupons. but i also don't want my favorite creators to lose their cut in favor of literally paypal. that's the little guy getting screwed by those on top.

paperwarior posted...

People also don't care that their data is being collected because there is no longer any way of avoiding it.

There rarely was, we just know that now.

I wonder how long it's going to take part 2 to come out.

It's hard to tell from the ending stinger, but the implication send to be that in addition to not giving the best discount codes on sites that it has partnerships with, it might be using good codes that aren't supposed to be public on sites that have not partnered with them.

LegalEagle video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY

Predictably there is going to be a class action. And you don't need to have run a Honey advertisement to be a part of the class. Simply having made any kind of content that would have used an reference or affiliate code that may have been undermined by Honey is enough. Are there any B8 youtubers that might qualify for inclusion?

Some clarifications from a different involved lawyer regarding the current state of the class action. Most notably the distinction that the class action is at this point on behalf of the creators who were impacted by stolen affiliate funds and not consumers who were impacted by Honey deliberately not actually providing the best coupon codes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItiXffyTgQg

He says that the "we promise not to sue or file a class action" in the terms/conditions might actually be enough to protect paypal/honey from the consumer side of the issues (but that it isn't 100% set it stone)

Forceful_Dragon posted...

He says that the "we promise not to sue or file a class action" in the terms/conditions might actually be enough to protect paypal/honey from the consumer side of the issues (but that it isn't 100% set it stone)

Uh, those clauses at best protect them from claims of negligence, not from actual malice/fraud.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

He says that the "we promise not to sue or file a class action" in the terms/conditions might actually be enough to protect paypal/honey from the consumer side of the issues (but that it isn't 100% set it stone)

Is that a forced arbitration clause or is that allegedly disallowed as well?

redrocket posted...

Uh, those clauses at best protect them from claims of negligence, not from actual malice/fraud.

The lawyer in the video indicated that the US judicial system has been tending to side with companies and against consumers in similar situations.

But I don't claim to be an expert so idk, just parroting what the supposed experts are saying.

At the very least the creators and the consumers would still have very different claims because the damage itself is occurring in a very different way.

.

This is the snippet showcased in the video:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/6859513a.jpg

But it sounds like he was saying it could also depend on if the user agreement even required it's own dedicated click of acceptance when the extension gets installed.

That shouldnt even cover them since their app damages people who dont even use Honey

Even though it's the exact opposite of what's advertised, the act of hiding better coupons is less financially damaging than what happens on the creator side, and in my layman's opinion I imagine it would be harder to argue damages in a class action.

htaeD posted...

That shouldnt even cover them since their app damages people who dont even use Honey

That doesn't cover them, from the creators perspective. They are the ones who are having referral codes overwritten and actual commissions stolen.

But from the users side it's harder to argue "honey gave me a 10% discount but I know it could have given me more!"

Unless honey has its own records of how often it under-delivers coupon codes? They might use that data to convince new online merchants to partner with them to prevent them from providing stronger codes.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But from the users side it's harder to argue "honey gave me a 10% discount but I know it could have given me more!"

Especially since it doesn't block you from using other coupon codes you find. So if you already had a better coupon than the one Honey gives you it doesn't hurt you since you just use yours instead.

yeah the user side doesn't have an argument on damages really. on top of that there are offers that honey has that are exclusive to them and the discounts you're getting are in the form of those (e.g., $30 off an item on this website) or cashbacks. they aren't just coupon codes and for the end user, can absolutely be worth it while offering good savings. i use all 3 of the main ones - honey, rakuten, capital one shopping - and when it comes to coupon codes i've occasionally found some that aren't on their list, though most of the time it's fine. it's very much so a creator side issue legally here.

Apparently when you install the PayPal app on an Apple device it installs the Honey extension to the Safari browser automatically.

The extension is not enabled so that requires an extra click, but you can't remove it without removing the PayPal app as well.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But from the users side it's harder to argue "honey gave me a 10% discount but I know it could have given me more!"

this is not the consumer argument. the consumer argument is that Honey told them that the 10% discount was the highest discount possible.

as somebody who's used honey quite a bit, it's never that it's the highest possible but that it's the most found in the app, which is true.

other apps - capital one shopping in particular - will have more. and even that's not gonna be perfect, half my shit bought with coupon codes goes through slickdeals with people who are trying to maximize it.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

Someone remind me to ditch it in two weeks. I'm mobile only until the 7th and can't do anything while my PC back home is unplugged.

@BlueCrystalTear Just checking now that it's past the 7th if you still needed reminding.

Wanglicious posted...

as somebody who's used honey quite a bit, it's never that it's the highest possible but that it's the most found in the app, which is true.

other apps - capital one shopping in particular - will have more. and even that's not gonna be perfect, half my shit bought with coupon codes goes through slickdeals with people who are trying to maximize it.

Yeah but if you can prove that users have "told" honey about better codes and it doesn't update to use them moving forward then it's still falling in that regard.

oh for sure people have, i've done it before and no way i didn't get SD codes without others having submitted it too. but if you're looking towards a lawsuit like... i don't think you're gonna prove any harm in this way. creators absolutely got fucked but the consumer has a hard case for it on that. "oh no, you saved me 10% instead of 25%" is a strange argument to make. and they can just as easily say "it takes a bit of time for the coupon to be verified on our end" and it's back to nothing as most coupon codes that are good like that won't last more than a day.

Wanglicious posted...

oh for sure people have, i've done it before and no way i didn't get SD codes without others having submitted it too. but if you're looking towards a lawsuit like... i don't think you're gonna prove any harm in this way. creators absolutely got fucked but the consumer has a hard case for it on that. "oh no, you saved me 10% instead of 25%" is a strange argument to make. and they can just as easily say "it takes a bit of time for the coupon to be verified on our end" and it's back to nothing as most coupon codes that are good like that won't last more than a day.

opportunity cost is a cost

there's no opportunity cost issue either - you could always put in the code manually yourself. honey not automatically doing that for you did not detract from your ability to make it cheaper.

Wanglicious posted...

there's no opportunity cost issue either - you could always put in the code manually yourself. honey not automatically doing that for you did not detract from your ability to make it cheaper.

If it's telling you there are no better codes available and it's lying, then anybody who believes it is not going to search for better codes and is going to lose out. Those are of course quite difficult things to prove and I agree with you anything on these lines will be an uphill battle for consumers to satisfactorily prove in court, but it is a deceitful harm done to consumers for the benefit of the company.

actually i'm now curious how far caveat emptor goes i'll ask somebody about that

Wanglicious posted...

as somebody who's used honey quite a bit, it's never that it's the highest possible but that it's the most found in the app, which is true.

other apps - capital one shopping in particular - will have more. and even that's not gonna be perfect, half my shit bought with coupon codes goes through slickdeals with people who are trying to maximize it.

There is a question on if it's a reasonable expectation for the average consumer to expect that it is the highest possible. Like is your mom or grandma going to know that honey might not have all the best deals.

Like if honey advertises that searching online for coupons is a thing of the past, is it fair for someone to take that at face value.

Of course this just like one step. I think a much harder thing to discover is how it actually affects consumers. Like for products that get hit with false claims there is a clear product said it does this and it led to a purchase of that product. Think red bull makes you better at sports, mini wheats make you better at school, even things like not being forthright about ingredient contents. Even if a vast majority of people don't purchase because of their claims (or claim they don't) it's pretty clear that unfounded claims by a product to help drive sales is a no no, since it's fair to say that some people would not have purchased the product otherwise.

But with honey you are not buying a product honey is selling. And if you are at checkout you have probably decided to buy regardless of any deals. So it becomes harder to link honey to a purchase of an item. So it really rests heavily on is what honey did wrong legally enough for them to be punished AND was there actually consumer damage.

it doesn't say that there's none better available period, just that it didn't find more and that, based on its codes, you've found the best deal you can find. it also has a section asking if you know of a promo code not listed and want to submit it, so that's just passive acknowledgement that there's potentially more out there which are better and i think that's the "out" for this argument; by asking for people to submit they acknowledge that a better deal could exist, more codes could exist, and that it's constantly changing.

you'd pretty much need discovery to find that they had codes explicitly blacklisted to get the consumer side harmed. which would be a hell of a claim considering it's way easier for them to just... not include codes they "didn't know" or "weren't able to verify before they expired." proof they talk to storefronts won't help on this either, honey's got exclusive sales that happen with certain items, e.g., if you're interested in this HDD from Western Digital Honey might have a $20 off code on it that nobody else seems to. that's not hypothetical, saw that one last year.

mind you, personally i very much do want paypal to be dinged on this because they are long overdue getting slapped around for multiple things. i just don't see the consumer side get much of anything, which is why i'm happy the creators are the ones all jumping on this because... well, they should, they legit got robbed.

Mind you.

Companies try to use particular language all the time to get around stuff like this, but it doesn't always work.

For instance, Starbucks is being sued with their fruit drinks not containing any of the fruit (in liquid form) in the beverage. So like a strawberry or mango drink has little to no actual mango or strawberry juice. Starbucks tried to argue that it refered to the fruit pieces. Even if this is true, it's probably not reasonable for the consumer to expect this.

That being said. If I was not clear I do agree that legally consumers have a harder hill to climb. But I do believe they were wronged by honey. It's more if they can legally prove that.

KokoroAkechi posted...

Companies try to use particular language all the time to get around stuff like this, but it doesn't always work.

I mean the courts recently ruled that when a restaurant says it serves boneless chicken wings that doesn't mean the consumer should assume the wings won't have any bones in them.

So I wouldn't expect the courts to decide that Honey's language is too misleading.

I also expect Starbucks to easily win that lawsuit.

Eh, the fact that the lawsuit has already passed the hurdle of getting to a trial is bad for starbucks as most plaintiffs win in these situations. So, i'd be half surprised if it actually makes it to court, even if Starbucks seemed adamant on defending it to the death or whatever.

Also, the Boneless wing thing is like way more nuanced then at face value. Where I'd say there is a reasonable split of minds on if the ruling was right or not. Even the actual decision was only 4 to 3.

GANON1025 posted...

Never trusted Honey myself, always seemed too good to be true

Same

FYI I did uninstall it shortly after I got home. Anybody know any other extensions that check Amazon price history and *don't* do the stealth affiliate link BS? I would presume that, from a quick Google search, CamelCamelCamel is in the same boat as Honey since I see that one has an affiliate link they no longer want you to know about (this was not the case in 2017, however, as the founder stated that's how they make money in a Reddit AMA). I can look for coupons myself, but price history is a little more difficult.

i think price history is honestly gonna just be things like camel and honey. technically i've seen capital one shopping also point me to places but it's another one like honey. best answer is gonna be to just open another tab and do it manually in camel. or do a search in slickdeals, if it's not too out there, and you'll find some idea of what the price history has actually been (see: coupons, discounts, etc amazon does to hide it).

For starters you shouldn't allow an extension to run in the background for this. If you look things up manually in a separate tab then you aren't leaving the door open continuously for whatever these companies try to pull.

For the record.

I believe capital one also just got hit with a lawsuit for the same thing

Right, I haven't finished this video yet, but it sounds like there are a handful of lawsuits naming PayPal with functionally similar arguments that may be combined and at least one naming Capital One for commission thievery as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9FhM8DMHCM

Ah, if Camel lets you do it on the website, I can do it that way. Thanks.

It's good that PayPal is being sued over this. Apparently they bought Honey for $4 billion and that closed at the start of 2**0, so five years ago. Here's wondering if they're gonna end up losing money because of the lawsuits.

It would be pretty gross if we were to find out that they have already recuperated $4 Billion in stolen commissions.

gamersnexus video on this dropped today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKbFBgNuEOU&ab_channel=GamersNexus

I've only watched about half so far, but it is perhaps overly thorough? lol

They are also really going after the "harming consumers" side of things which I'm not sure is a great approach out of the gate.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

They are also really going after the "harming consumers" side of things which I'm not sure is a great approach out of the gate.

You need to in order to make the public care, even if objectively speaking it harms the creator side a lot more.

I feel like you restrict your initial arguments to the layups before sprinkling in a lower accuracy shot? Especially in a class action where now you are talking about two completely different "classes"?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

it is perhaps overly thorough? lol

That's GN

GN is always overly thorough, that's part of why they have such a loyal base and are heavily, heavily respected. they're the tech channel that is consumer focused. they aren't really affected by Honey on the creator side much either so that's not their biggest issue, they're always gonna be on the consumer end of issues.

Still no part 2 on the video

I wonder if any of the parties suing PayPal/Honey have reached out to MegaLag for any of the details he's still sitting on from the unreleased video(s)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4850644b.png

Finally, an update!

Pretty much what we could have expected though.