Netscape is suing PayPal?
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
369 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
60851 readers
4234 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I read that as “law slut”
18 U.S. Code § 351 always gets me going
LegalEagle and Wendover Productions actually beat them to the punch (Nebula) on this. They filed on 29th December 2024, a whole 4 days earlier.
And since the US courts charge money to get these documents, I downloaded a copy of the complaint earlier on my PACER account so anyone who's interested can read it without incurring the stupid fees. Enjoy
Edit: Devin Stone (the host of LegalEagle) is actually a lawyer on this case. His name and his law firm are listed as a lawyer for the plaintiff on the complaint.
Jesus, spelling mistake in the first sentence of the complaint. Fire the legal aide.
What's the spelling mistake? I didn't see it.
Plaintiffs are content created
Should probably be "creators"
I see. That's not technically the first sentence though. I stopped looking once I got to line 6.
Page 2, line 8: "Plaintiffs are content created..."
Presumably it should be content creators, not created
In GN's video the law firm mentioned there are 3-4 cases already and they are probably getting combined or go to the same judge. (IANAL; IDK the specifics)
load more comments
(3 replies)
At this rate Steve is going to end up offed or cancelled in some kind of way, he keeps digging deeper.
load more comments
(19 replies)
If you haven't seen it yet, check out this investigation on Honey (20 minutes, Part 1):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4yL3YTwWk
It's fascinating stuff. Open fraud.
I can't speak for formal legal matters (I am assuming such scams are nominally legal in the US), but it goes to show that senior PayPal executives are basically criminals. There is no way they didn't know about this.
I mean, Paypal is a bank that isn't beholden to all the normal bank regulations and customer protection rules due to technicalities. They have been caught effectively seizing customer funds through locking accounts for questionable reasons before, and offer no reasonable way of recovering funds from locked accounts. Numerous stories of people operating online etsy (and similar) storefronts getting accounts locked for vague claims they were actively money laundering, with no means for appeal.
Anyone just now becoming aware of the paypal execs' corruption hasn't been paying attention.
load more comments
(2 replies)
LTT fans are in complete meltdown over big mean steve pointing out that Linus seemingly discovered this and stayed completely quiet about it.
Linus seems to had a big hissy fit about the whole subject of Honey on his WAN show, too.
WAN show is like 33% Linus whining about any actual or perceived slight against him for like over a year now. It's getting so annoying.
I tend to agree that they should have spoken up. Even if just for the damn clicks and views.
If you're no longer doing business with them, why not be vocal about why? If there's a legitimate reason, it tells other partners where your line is so they know whether you're a good fit for them. Don't bad mouth them, but explain the facts and encourage viewers and other YouTubers to avoid them for the stated reasons.
I honestly don't see what's wrong with that. Steve from GN has done much worse and still gets sponsors, so it really can't be that.
But they did state the reasons, on their forums. At the time it was only known Honey steals money from affiliate link owners, not from users, and presumably it worked correctly for users.
So what do you think would happen if they encouraged viewers not to use it? "Hey we know this extension makes you money, but please don't use it because we, millionaire YouTubers, are getting smaller profits when your do, and our profits are more important than your savings". They checked with other creators, most of YouTube stopped promoting it at the time, and that was it. It would be seen as very self-serving to complain about it to users/viewers.
It turns out, people care about supporting channels they watch a lot. In fact, I go out of my way to use affiliate links if they helped me decide with their review.
All they need to say is "Honey strips our affiliate links, so I'd appreciate if you don't use that extension," and provide some evidence. It doesn't even need a full video, maybe use it as a segway into a sponsor that does honor referal URLs.
If users know Honey is messing with URLs for their own benefit, maybe they'll look for an alternative.
I mean, the information was published. People could have shared it more if they cared. Most users don't. Just look at the backlash he got for comparing ad block's impact to that of piracy. I still see people citing that as a reason not to trust LMG. If people are that offended by being asked to consider the effects they have on creator income, you really think they'd react well to being told their discounts are hurting creators. They're already seen as whiney, pro-corporate shills. They're not going to go out of their way to shout from the rooftops criticism for a company that helps consumers (or was thought to at the time).
Edit: to be clear, I'm not a fan of LTT, but if you're going to criticize them, do it for their bias, factual errors, personality, ect. Not because they didn't go far enough to discourage using coupon codes.
Just look at the backlash he got for comparing ad block’s impact to that of piracy.
Well yeah, because he's objectively wrong, yet doubled and (I think) tripled down on it.
What he meant was that blocking ads eliminates his revenue (which is bad), but it's not piracy by any definition I've ever heard of.
That said, I don't think it has anything to do with how trustworthy LMG is, there are plenty of other reasons to have concerns about that (GN made a video about that). I watch them occasionally as entertainment, but rarely for actual information.
Not because they didn’t go far enough to discourage using coupon codes.
I'm not arguing that they should discourage people from using coupons, I'm arguing they should have explained why Honey is problematic and why they're no longer taking their sponsorships. There should be no call to action, merely information that Honey isn't great. Users can then consider other sources for coupons that may be more friendly for affiliate links, or not, the information is merely why they're no longer working w/ Honey as a sponsor.
Your comment is just objectively wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I am genuinely concerned about this because Legal Eagle’s suit is directly tied to manipulating URLs and cookies. The suit, even with its focus on last click attribution, doesn’t make an incredibly specific argument. If Legal Eagle wins, this sets a very dangerous precedent for ad blockers being illegal because ad blockers directly manipulate cookies and URLs. I haven’t read the Gamer’s Nexus one yet.
Please note that I’m not trying to defend Honey at all. They’re actively misleading folks.
That's like saying bank robberies being illegal mean that going to the bank is illegal.
Honey is unlawful because of what they DO by changing those URLs and cookies, e.g enriching themselves at the expense of creators.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It could never apply to ad blockers. You install an ad blocker knowing that it will block stuff... and explicitly WANTING it to do so.
Nobody installed honey knowing that it was manipulating cookies and stuff. The normal layperson who installs it will just think "It's just chucking in coupon codes into that box!"...
One is predicated on a lie of omission... the other is literally what the user wants. There's a huge difference...
You’re looking at it from an end user perspective. “I want it to do this, so it’s ok” for an ad blocker, but “I didn’t know it was doing this so it’s bad” for Honey.
But the LE/GN cases are that Honey changed URLs and cost them the sale revenue, no? That’s not the end user experience. Seems like that could easily be pivoted to a website who claims lost revenue was stolen from them because ad blockers are manipulating their site/URLs, end users’ desires be damned.
But the LE/GN cases are that Honey changed URLs and cost them the sale revenue, no?
https://www.cpmlegal.com/assets/htmldocuments/GamersNexus%20v.%20Paypal.pdf
a. Nationwide Class: All persons and entities in the United States who participated in an affiliate commission program with a United States eCommerce merchant and had commissions diverted to PayPal as a result of Honey.
So yes, they're suing on behalf of creators.
But they're using logic of what is promised/advertised to users... alongside the creator side of it all.
- Consumers download the PayPal Honey browser extension under the promise that Honey will search the web for the best coupons to ensure consumers pay the lowest prices when checking out with eCommerce merchants [...] After this affiliate network partnership is established, on information and belief, Honey deliberately withholds higher-value coupons, directly contradicting Honey’s promise to consumers.
Which we know is inaccurate at this point and honey is lying. Most of the rest will come out in discovery if Honey wants to fight it. And I think it's safe to say that anything that comes out in discovery will simply hang honey even more than we already know.
Gotcha. Thanks for providing the additional detail! It is comforting to learn why it’s unlikely this could affect ad block.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I understand why you would think that, but this is not the case. Not a lawyer though, not legal advice.
There are 2 main types of causes of action for this, let's go over them:
- Conversion, unjust enrichment: Here, Legal eagle and other creators allege Honey took money that was supposed to go to them. Basically just theft. This does not apply to adblock, since they don't take the money.
- Tortious interference: Here they claim, that by removing the tracking cookie, they unlawfully interfere with the business relationship between the affiliates and the shopping platform. This could maybe apply to ad-blockers, but it is almost certainly superseded by the user explicitly wanting to remove tracking cookies, and the user has the right to do so. Saying that it is unlawful interference is like saying a builder hired by a land owner to build a fence is interfering with truckers who were using the land as a shortcut. They had no legal right to pass through the land in the first place. So the owner can commission a fence and a builder can build it. A contract between the truckers and amazon would not matter. In case of honey, it is like the builder was not hired by the owner and just built the fence to spite the truckers without owners permission.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Tech Jesus strikes again!
Prepare for his cumming
view more: next ›