Saik0

But the LE/GN cases are that Honey changed URLs and cost them the sale revenue, no?

https://www.cpmlegal.com/assets/htmldocuments/GamersNexus v. Paypal.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.

12. 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.

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…

Nah man, clearly you missed the memo that we now just take every statement out of it’s obvious context and straw man the shit out of everything.

It hurts every real argument against these people when people make stupid arguments like this.