Talk:PayPal Honey

Good new source

Here: Cabot Wealth Network. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure Cabot Wealth Network would be considered a reliable source. Sgerbic (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s a remarkably well-researched and well-written article published by a quite reputable and high-quality outlet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What new information is this source intended to support? Why do we need another citation? Are there not already enough citations? Qwerty123M (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Attributed analysis of the PayPal stock in light of the Honey controversy ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

And the Criteo/Steelhouse parallel ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

PayPal response

Why was PayPal's reaction to these accusations removed from the article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If I had to guess, probably because it's lacking context. The whole, regardless of how true it factually is, is lacking good, reliable sources.

It'll probably be a few days, maybe a week+ given we're in the middle of the holiday season.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't get sorted until early January 2025.

That is all, as per WP:NOTAFORUM. Lafi90 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM doesn't apply to a user starting a discussion about why content from the article was removed. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

RisingTzar removed it with the edit summary, "Remove PayPal statement as it doesn't address the controversy (Honey's own affiliate program following last-click tracking doesn't mean that they're not cookie stuffing)."

Personally, if PayPal only wants to defend part of their practices in a statement, then we should just include the full statement and let readers decide their thoughts on it. Otherwise, it seems that PayPal never made a statement when they did. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing operates on the last referral, so updating a cookie doesn't count as 'cookie stuffing' -Honey updates cookies designed to switch to the last affiliate used when you click on their extension, which is completely conventional. Compensation in the industry follows a "last click" award scheme, so if you interact with Honey at all before purchase, you award them the last click. Honey's terms of use agreement makes it clear that they are paid when you engage with their prompts,

In other words, the accusation of "cookie stuffing" is something this editor invented to remove PayPal's response. Honey isn't being accused of cookie stuffing per se, but "stealing" affiliate commissions from influencers. And the way that these influencers describe how they are being "robbed" indicates that they neither understand the industry or read the TOU agreement (where Honey also says they aren't responsible for missed savings, which is the second and more minor accusation). Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to follow up, this is from The Verge,

"MegaLag also says Honey will hijack affiliate revenue from influencers. According to MegaLag, if you click on an affiliate link from an influencer, Honey will then swap in its own tracking link when you interact with its deal pop-up at check-out. That’s regardless of whether Honey found you a coupon or not, and it results in Honey getting the credit for the sale, rather than the YouTuber or website whose link led you there."[1]

So, that's not an accusation of cookie stuffing -it's someone who doesn't understand how the industry works. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you’re arguing here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That there was no basis to remove PayPal's response, and the rationale given (ie "cookie stuffing") doesn't follow from the accusations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll even go a step further -the article claims that Honey "discreetly modifies affiliate cookies" and then deceptively links to the article on cookie stuffing even though the sources cited don't use that language. Your browser cookie store is intended to be modified, and affiliate links are designed to switch to the most recent affiliate used. PayPal addressed this in response to these accusations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the allegations is that the tracking cookies are being modified as a result of the user's interaction with the Honey extension via their popup. This includes simply discarding the popup from Honey stating that no coupons were found. It does seem like a clear-cut case of cookie stuffing to me.

The statement from Honey is back in the article and it says "Honey follows industry rules and practices, including last-click attribution" which to me seems to be either be a misunderstanding from Honey's PR team or intentional deceit. Specifically, the response seems to be in reference to how their own affiliate program attributes conversions whereas Megalag is alleging that the affiliate cookies of other sites is being modified. RisingTzar (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What RS is talking about 'cookie stuffing'? None that I've seen -all of them describe what is little more than the last referral method that's been the industry standard.

Honey isn’t even modifying the cookies -they’re simply loading the original website, in the background via an affiliate URL, which causes that site to update its affiliate cookie. That’s not “cookie stuffing” because Honey isn’t inserting extra cookies directly into your cookie store. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Did not see this was an issue on the talk page when I made my major edit from the USA Today source.

I was under the impression this kind of marketing system doesn't have written rules that are in-depth enough to deal with this kind of issues and that PayPayl's statement is a self-serving, but technically true statement (i.e. the industry rules and practices are so vague that we can do this and say we're not breaking any rules)

n any case, it's not our place to assess of PayPayl's statement is honest or correct. While it isn't enforced by policy as in the case of BLPS (WP:DENIALS), WP:NPOV requires us to provide PayPayl's side of the story if reliable sources cover it, which now multiple have. If there are new RSs that explicitly denounce the statements, we can and probably should include those as well, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about written rules -it's about what's acceptable industry practice. The last-click model is widely used in affiliate marketing, it isn't illegal, and it wouldn't normally be regarded as unethical considering most merchants award the last click.

Cookie stuffing is totally different and may even been illegal if it's wire fraud. This article should not link to the cookie stuffing article as there's no evidence Honey was doing this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If cookie stuffing is the wrong term, that's not an argument for removing PayPay's response to multiple news outlets, that's an argument for taking out that phrase.

Looking at the cookie stuffing article, it doesn't look like it's always illegal. The fraud examples are where their website secretly loaded affiliate cookies that stayed active the next time the user went on eBay. That seems materially different from what Honey is doing. I'm not tech expert, but it looks similar to what is described in the video where the Honey extension quickly opens and closes and a tab (i.e. loading a URL) before the affiliate link in the cookie changes. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't always illegal, but in those cases the actual charge was wire fraud.

I'm the one who started this section to get PayPal's response back in the article, so I'm not arguing that at all. Now that it's back in there, I do not think this article should link to "cookie stuffing" when no RS is using that language and there's no evidence Honey was doing that. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I made an improper assumption based on the fact it was a reply without double-checking. I'm not sure that Honey wasn't doing this, but I agree that it doesn't look like reliable sources are using that term, so until it pops up in RS, we should avoid it, since it may be potential fraud. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can’t hyperlink cookie-stuffing without a reliable source calling it that. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and for future reference, here's Honey's TOU agreement.[2]. Note in particular:

"We make money to sustain the Service when you purchase or engage with these offers."

If you engage with Honey at all, whether they found coupons or not, you are giving them last click on the sale. That isn't cookie stuffing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously a TOS isn't going to say that the corporation reserves the right to do unethical thing X.

It seems like it is functionally the same in some cases when the extension does not find any deals, but it is not cookie stuffing as a matter of semantics since it loads and closes a tab with the proper URL to modify the cookie. We'll have to see if any RS describe it as cookie stuffing or describe it as similar to the practice (or if it gets used in a lawsuit). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you could argue it's functionally the same, or that it's a loophole to achieve the same result without directly stuffing cookies. But it's not technically cookie stuffing. You could also say Honey's aggressively pursuing the industry standard of last click, fine. But this whole thing has been needlessly blown out of proportion to a "massive scam" or something illegal ("stealing revenues") when Honey actually just kind of gamed the system. If you were to ban this functionality, you'd have to change a whole lot of other related things that would cause issues.

Obviously the terms won't state anything unethical, but they state enough so that it's legally clear. The phrase "or engage" means if you interact with their service in any way, they get paid. Another way to read that is, if you interact with Honey before purchase you're agreeing to let them be the final click. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Scam" and "stealing" both have colloquial, non-legal definitions and I thought the video was fairly clear in saying it wasn't providing legal analysis. In any case, any changes wouldn't be about banning last click attribution or the underlying process, but this specific practice, similar to how you can ban phone scams without banning telemarketing.

Terms of use often state all kinds of things that sound legally clear but might not hold up in court. To me, it seems technically ambiguous if "purchase or engage with these offers" is attempting to reframe the entire service as an "offer" or only the "negotiate[d] exclusive offers that may be better than other publicly available deals" in the previous sentence. It's also ambiguous if it means "purchase" OR "engage with these offers" or "purchase or engage" WITH these offers. Many jurisdictions have contra preferentem and/or consumer protection laws that tend to resolve ambiguities in favour of the non-drafter/consumer.

In any case, these are all hypothetical for now, and we'll have to see if there's any legal blowback. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that linking to cookie stuffing is a leap of some of sort. Cookie stuffing is literally the technical term for the practice of stealing affiliate links (which is literally what Honey did, as reported multiple RS).

The fact that cookie stuffing is also considered wire-fraud in certain contexts, and whether Honey was operating in the legally grey/black area is a different conversation to be had and should be noted separately. (And I think based on the OR above, it seems like PayPal at-least claims no wrongdoing). Sohom (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Per Cookie stuffing: "Affiliates engaging in cookie stuffing use invasive techniques, like pop-up ads, to falsely claim credit for sales they did not facilitate."

In this case, Honey is making use of a popup and any interaction with that Honey popup (incl. merely discarding it) would result in the credit for the sale to go to them. I really don't think a source is required when this is such a textbook case of cookie stuffing. RisingTzar (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't "textbook" -read the rest of the thread. Also read the rest of the lead in the article you linked: "enticing consumers to buy products through specially crafted URLs that set cookies on users' browsers." Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're under the impression that Honey would need to directly modify the cookie store in order to do cookie stuffing but this is not the case as there are various techniques for cookie stuffing.

What is being alleged is that Honey would open a new tab in the background with their own affiliate code so that they could always get that last-click. RisingTzar (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they found a way to get that last click without actually cookie stuffing. Again, from the article you link: "During cookie stuffing, the browser is tricked into sending a request to the marketplace without the user's knowledge," and "Cookie stuffing works by tricking the browser into setting this cookie without the user clicking an affiliate link." That isn't what Honey's doing -they advertise themselves as coupon/discount finders and that's pretty much what they do. They pop up at checkout with offers or messages, and if they're clicked before purchase they get the commission. All of this is spelled out in their terms and conditions, so there is no tricking going on, and no direct insertion of tracking cookies into the user's cookie store without their knowledge. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

> without the user's knowledge." That isn't what Honey's doing ... All of this is spelled out in their terms and conditions, so there is no tricking going on

Nobody reads the T&C. The fact that this is spelled out in the T&C doesn't mean that the users were informed participants in this scheme. Given the response from Honey users and influencers, I think it's really obvious that both were tricked and were completely unaware that any of this was occurring.

In any case, I don't think Honey is doing anything illegal here. Honey is only modifying the affiliate tracking codes for companies that they've partnered with. The contract they have with those partnered companies explicitly allows them to do this.

I still do think it's cookie stuffing as they are in-fact claiming credit for sales they didn't facilitate. A user that's on a checkout page is about to make a purchase irrespective of Honey, claiming the credit for the sale when the user is finalizing the purchase without the informed consent of the user is the definition of cookie stuffing. The only difference is that it's a newer technique given that it's a browser extension and that Honey has partnered with companies to get permission to do this. RisingTzar (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how consumers were 'tricked' -the affiliate commissions have nothing to do with the consumers. Honey is a coupon finder and that's pretty much what they do. If the influencers were tricked it's probably because they didn't read the terms, and that's their own fault. Honey explains how they make money and how they use cookies, and it doesn't take deep knowledge to put the two together. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You do freaking realize, this is happening on all affiliate links. A YouTuber who has no involvement with Honey at all, but sells affiliate products is also a victim here. (And that is part of the problem). If the influencers were tricked it's probably because they didn't read the terms, and that's their own fault. Is reductive and a weird take to have. Sohom (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If a Youtuber sells you a product and you purchase it through their affiliate link, they get the commission. But if they sell you a product, you click the link, but then go to find coupons, and then click through another affiliate's link before purchase, the last click overwrites the affiliate code and gets the commission. From the perspective of the Youtuber, what they see on their screen is exactly what they're seeing when their followers have Honey's browser extension on their laptop or phone. All Honey did was figure out a way to do exactly what I just described only at checkout. Their service is to find the coupons for you, present them at checkout, and their terms and conditions make it clear they get paid when you interact with their messaging (ie when you click on it).

What's "reductive and "weird" is shouting fraud! and scam! without any legal basis, and then trying to hyperlink to an article that uses terminology no RS is using and talks about criminal activity. People who don't read terms and conditions, don't do any deep market research before launching a business, or don't assess the risks before making an investment, are not typically afforded this much sympathy let alone big headlines in tech news. One strongly suspects these Youtubers are leveraging anti-corporate sentiment, and that some editors here are trying to slant the article in that direction. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You've somehow missed the point of what I am saying. A Youtuber (that is not associated with Honey) in this context can do nothing to prevent their affiliate revenue from being "stolen".

It is not "reductive" or "weird" to question a shady business practices, regardless of what the Terms and Conditions of said tech enterprise. If Microsoft's EULA implied that the company was allowed to spy on you in your home, that does not suddenly make it legal for Microsoft to do the same. Sohom (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The word shady also implies illegality, as does your Microsoft example. There is nothing shady or illegal about the last click model, or hiring corporate lawyers to draft up terms and conditions. Not reading a contract before entering into a commercial relationship is no one's fault but the consumer's.

" A Youtuber (that is not associated with Honey) in this context can do nothing to prevent their affiliate revenue from being "stolen".

And even in the example I give the Youtuber can do nothing about it. Just because someone clicks your affiliate link doesn't mean you're guaranteed a commission. The sale has to close, and if the consumer clicks your link but then looks for a discount via another affiliate, there's nothing the Youtuber can do if another affiliate gets the final click.

It's not the consumers who are complaining anyway, nor is it the merchants (which is what you'd expect from a cookie stuffing scam). The people who are driving this backlash are Youtube influencers. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

> Also read the rest of the lead in the article you linked: "enticing consumers to buy products through specially crafted URLs that set cookies on users' browsers."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It is simply an explanation for affiliate marketing. The full sentence is "In affiliate marketing, individuals (affiliates) are compensated for enticing consumers to buy products through specially crafted URLs that set cookies on users' browsers to track which affiliate referred the user to the site" RisingTzar (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Honey is loading the original website which causes the site to update its affiliate cookie. That's not what's being described in the cookie stuffing article, nor the language that is used in RSes. So, not a textbook case, and definitely needs attribution. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is described in the cookie stuffing article in the "Techniques" section. See:

> Other techniques used by fraudulent affiliates include using iframes to embed the online marketer's website in the code or using scripts and image tags to request specific resources that would set the cookie for the affiliate on the destination website.

This is exactly what Honey is doing, though in Honey's case the fact that it's a browser extension grants them the ability to simply open a new tab page to the set the cookie. RisingTzar (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Honey states that it uses cookies and similar technologies to, among other things, "assess the performance of our websites, applications, services, and tools, including as part of our analytic practices to help us understand how our visitors use our websites, determine if you have interacted with our messaging, determine whether you have viewed an item or link, or to improve our website content, applications, services, or tools;"[3]
• On their terms of use agreement, linked up top, they clearly state they are getting paid when you engage with their messaging. There are some here who think that Honey should've spelled this out in more detail so that it was clearer, but clearer for whom? These terms, conditions and privacy statements are legal contracts with the consumer, and anything the consumer might want to know, like how Honey gets paid, and the fact that Honey changes cookies, is outlined in the contract. The Youtubers who had been convinced to promote Honey to their followers were also involved in affiliate marketing, but don't seem to have more than a basic idea of how it works. With a little more research they would've realized that if their followers use Honey, there's a high risk Honey will be awarded their affiliate commissions.
• This accusation of 'cookie stuffing' has been addressed up top and unless you can find multiple RSes making this case, then it is technically, "literally" not what Honey did in this case. If you click on a Youtuber's affiliate link and purchase a product, the Youtuber will get the commission. But if you click on the link, view the product, but decide to search for coupons or discounts, then click on another link from another site offering those savings, the second site is credited with the sale even though the Youtuber was the one who introduced the product and sold you on it. Honey essentially figured out a way to game the final click system, but they are not directly inserting cookies into your cookie store, and are not operating in a legally grey area. A legal mechanism for obtaining last click is by changing the cookie.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This doesn’t matter. What matters is what reliable sources report. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What's Wiki policy for dealing with cases where otherwise reliable sources accuse an entity of fraud despite not having any legal basis? Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Wiki policy, is to provide both sides, @Jonathan f1 you are trying to reduce the allegations and provide the companies perspective, which is not how WP:NPOV works. Sohom (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Both sides have been presented. The accusations made by Youtubers and their surrogates in the press are in there, and so is PayPal's response. What's the issue? Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My request above was simple, link "hijacking affiliate links" to Cookie stuffing. We don't have a article about about hijacking affiliate links in particular, however, Cookie stuffing comes the closest to providing a good enough technical treatment of the antics employed by Honey (as alleged by the YouTubers). Sohom (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to link, because Honey isn't inserting extra cookies directly into your folder -they're launching the original site, and the original site sets the cookie. Honey only affects the referral code if you interact with them at the end of the transaction, and that's outlined in their terms and conditions. I don't know of any cookie stuffing scams that come with terms and conditions, and it is generally the merchants who report this activity because it's a drain on them. No merchants are complaining about Honey in this case, only Youtubers. Honey's strategy is making it very difficult for smaller affiliates to compete, and the Youtubers are using their influence to make a big fuss out of it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

add lawsuit

Legal eagle on youtube has announced a lawsuit filed against honey for the recent controversy regarding theft of affiliate links

https://eagleteam.law/honeycase/ EvieGoesHard (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought that information is already in this article in the second from last paragraph of /*2024 allegations of overriding affiliate links*/. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Significant bias

I think this article needs to be toned down. The controversy should not be in the intro, and the marques brownlee paragraph is irrelevant. I agree it’s a big deal but this article feels super unserious right now. Henryballs (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Honey Marketing Claim Presented As Fact

The introduction contains the following text:

> It is known for developing a browser extension that aggregates and automatically applies online coupons on e-commerce websites.

The aggregation part of this is how Honey has marketed itself towards consumers but this is cast in doubt. More neutral wording would be ".. that it claims aggregates". No proof of this claim has been presented and some evidence is pointing to the opposite (being that coupons are pre-configured by vendors rather than aggregated from different sources).

Final proof for the opposite claim will likely still come / be properly formulated and sourced, but in the mean time maybe not present Honey's marketing claim of coupons being aggregated as fact? 77.163.100.191 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Honey's 'claims' about coupons/discounts, this is what their TOU agreement states:

While we try and find you the best available discounts and coupons, and to identify low prices, we may not always find you the best deal. PayPal is not responsible for any missed savings or rewards opportunities.

And:

While we attempt to provide accurate descriptions for the products, offers, coupons, discount codes, sales and other information shown within or through the Service, much of the information we display (including many coupons and offer descriptions) is provided by third parties that we do not control.[4] Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I need to be a bit more vocal about this. We don't care about what PayPal says in the context. I have removed the "aggregation" part per the above comment. Sohom (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And I don't disagree with that removal, but it's certainly relevant "what PayPal says" when we're hearing a lot of talk about "Honey says this, Honey says that, Honey promised this, Honey claims that.." Now that lawsuits have been filed, all that matters is what's legally binding in those contracts. Honey never promised the best deals, or to be in control of which deals are offered. They also don't say anything about aggregation. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

Remove hyperlink for "Sam Denby" OR "Wendover Productions" as they both lead to the same wikipedia page. Vinniethelad (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I do not support this change. Wendover Productions currently links to a heading on the Sam Denby page, not just the root page directly; it does provide some value to the user. Furthermore, the presence of the Wendover link is a redirect with possibilities (see {{rwp}}) — it could later be turned into its own page.

I went ahead and marked the Wendover Productions page as an R with possibilities to match my stance on it, and I don't think any changes are needed on this article. Doawk7 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Company

In the article it states that the company was later renamed to PayPal Honey. Is this ture? Does this company actually still exist as a its own subsidiary? Or is this simply a product offered and operated by PayPal Inc.? The lawsuit is directed at PayPal Inc. and not this specific subsidiary, and I can't find any information that this actually exists as its own company. Am I dense on how American corporate structures work? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)