4 ms·

Google removed chrome extensions that do cookie stuffing before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-two-chrome-ad-blocker-extensions-caught-cookie-stu

Google removed chrome extensions that do cookie stuffing before: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-two-chrome-ad-blocker-extensions-caught-cookie-stuffing/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-two-chrome-ad-b... PayPal's Honey extension should be pulled by Google for doing the exact same thing. There is no difference and Honey shouldn't get special treatment just because it's owned by PayPal. --- UPDATE: It's criminal wire fraud. Brian Dunning sentenced to 18 months jail for cookie stuffing: https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-dunning-ebay-and-affiliate-marketing-fraud-2014-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/brian-dunning-ebay-and-affil... “Cookie Stuffing" internet fraud schemer Jefferson Bruce McKittrick pleads guilty: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdal/pr/cookie-stuffing-internet-fraud-schemer-pleads-guilty-0 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdal/pr/cookie-stuffing-interne...

maratc 2y ago
Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  No but, LegalEagle is, and he's suing for class action with a bunch of other lawyers and creators [0] [1]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY [1]: https://eagleteam.law/honeycase/ https://eagleteam.law/honeycase/
  - maratc 2y ago
    Is he suing for class action on the claims of cookie stuffing? I haven't found the actual case in either link (the second one is for "creators" only), so I can't get the answer myself.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      The event is very fresh. <24h as I write this comment. The claims are not laid yet, but as far as I can see, it's starting with wire fraud, and they'll go from there. I don't think they're in the (private) discovery phase now. P.S.: I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not familiar law terms in the US, if the above comment makes no sense, please forget what I said and move to next comment in the chain. Thanks.
      - maratc 2y ago
        I see. To be clear, I’m not saying what Honey did is not criminal activity, I’m just saying what they did does not look to me as if it qualifies as “cookie stuffing”. It might still be illegal, for a different reason. (Obligatory IANAL.)
    - braiamp 2y ago
      No, he's claiming breach of contract and unfair practices. Cooking stuffing is just a customer issue, not a partner one. He would have no standing on that front.
      - maratc 2y ago
        My understanding of US law is extremely limited, but seeing it's a class action, would the lawyer be able to file the suit on behalf of the customers instead, if e.g. they thought it has a better chance to succeed as such? And if not, is the fact that this suit is filed on "breach of contract and unfair practices" claims presenting any evidence that Honey engaged in a specific legally defined practice of "cookie stuffing"?
      - kelseydh 2y ago
        The actual lawsuit does mention the cookie practices, it's the core of their class action. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.441974/gov.uscourts.cand.441974.9.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.44...
    - seanalltogether 2y ago
- kelseydh 2y ago
  Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud because the offender is receiving commissions for sales they did not generate, thus defrauding legitimate advertisers and companies paying for the advertising. Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension for sales it did not generate. They are representing themselves as the one who made the referral, and receiving commissions for doing so, when they did not.
  - maratc 2y ago
    > Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.) > Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave it aside as it's irrelevant to this discussion. > Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension I have not seen any evidence that Honey's extension stuffs more than one cookie for any given transaction. In my understanding "cookie stuffing" refers to a practice of stuffing a ton of cookies for one transaction, not to a practice of "stuffing" one cookie for multiple transactions. Moreover, "cookie stuffing" is not a result of "stuffing" a "cookie", just like "guinea pig" is not a "pig" and it didn't come from a place known as "Guinea". "Cookie stuffing" is a specific legal term describing a certain well-defined behavior, and it would be inaccurate to apply it to anything that involves "cookies" and "stuffing". In other words, if I put some jelly inside an Oreo, this would not qualify as "criminal fraud" known as "cookie stuffing", even though it can be said that by doing that I'm "stuffing" (putting "stuff") inside a "cookie" (Oreo). That's why I asked if you're a lawyer -- they usually understand that e.g. "wire fraud" could be done without any "wire", for instance completely wirelessly -- or that someone committing a "regular" fraud while holding a pack of wire in their hand does not commit "wire fraud". P.S. The search for "stuffing" in the filing you attached brings no results, so I assume the lawyers also don't argue that Honey engaged in "cookie stuffing" (which is criminal).
    - schiffern 2y ago
- belorn 2y ago
  From what I can find, the definition of cookie stuffing is to deceptive claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate. Its the deception that is illegal, not the act of setting cookies. As such, the amount, ton, or a few, does not change the definition. If they are claiming credit for the sale then they are either doings it in good faith or in bad faith. Which definition/source for cookie stuffing are you looking at?
  - maratc 2y ago
    > claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate They will argue that by providing a coupon that lowered the price for the customer they did in fact facilitate the sale. IANAL but this sounds reasonable to me. Less so for the sales they did not find a coupon for (even if they argue they've tried). The rest of your comment folds under this. I guess we'll see how this plays out, but for what it's worth, the attached filing does not argue "cookie stuffing". (It argues other things.) This may also go to a completely different direction of e.g. "securities fraud" -- the SEC may argue that PayPal, as a public company, has advertised their Honey service as "finding the best deals for their customers", and on the basis of that claim some of the investors chose to buy its shares. If this was a lie, the shares sale was made under false premises, and that seems like "securities fraud".
- immibis 2y ago
  One doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand that big business always wins. Those guys weren't big business, but PayPal is.
TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
but they provide coupons and stuff. So it's more a "service", and they get their cut by offering "refferals".
TheKarateKid 2y ago
This reminds me of how as times changed, once illegal behaviors are now considered normal because "big tech" embraced it. Remember Kazaa, BonziBuddy, Gator (The OG adware), etc.? They were demonized for collecting data on all the web traffic you were doing it. They got sued by the FTC and were forced to change their business models and/or close down. Then Facebook, Google came along and did the same thing in the early 2010's except via cookies and Javascript, but somehow that's ok. Even worse, it's considered a normal business practice. It amazes me that Honey has been able to become so popular given it's business model has always been more of a hack than an actual product. How did commission programs not sue them for fraud? Probably because they had good ole Silicon Valley VC money to scare them off.

maratc 2y ago

Are you a lawyer? Asking because "cookie stuffing" (which is indeed criminal) refers to the practice of setting a ton of referral cookies for the sites the browser had no intention of visiting, just for the case it will visit them some time in the future. In my understanding it does not refer to setting a cookie for the site the browser is currently on.

bayindirh 2y ago
No but, LegalEagle is, and he's suing for class action with a bunch of other lawyers and creators [0] [1]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H4sScCB1cY [1]: https://eagleteam.law/honeycase/ https://eagleteam.law/honeycase/
- maratc 2y ago
  Is he suing for class action on the claims of cookie stuffing? I haven't found the actual case in either link (the second one is for "creators" only), so I can't get the answer myself.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    The event is very fresh. <24h as I write this comment. The claims are not laid yet, but as far as I can see, it's starting with wire fraud, and they'll go from there. I don't think they're in the (private) discovery phase now. P.S.: I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not familiar law terms in the US, if the above comment makes no sense, please forget what I said and move to next comment in the chain. Thanks.
    - maratc 2y ago
      I see. To be clear, I’m not saying what Honey did is not criminal activity, I’m just saying what they did does not look to me as if it qualifies as “cookie stuffing”. It might still be illegal, for a different reason. (Obligatory IANAL.)
  - braiamp 2y ago
    No, he's claiming breach of contract and unfair practices. Cooking stuffing is just a customer issue, not a partner one. He would have no standing on that front.
    - maratc 2y ago
      My understanding of US law is extremely limited, but seeing it's a class action, would the lawyer be able to file the suit on behalf of the customers instead, if e.g. they thought it has a better chance to succeed as such? And if not, is the fact that this suit is filed on "breach of contract and unfair practices" claims presenting any evidence that Honey engaged in a specific legally defined practice of "cookie stuffing"?
    - kelseydh 2y ago
      The actual lawsuit does mention the cookie practices, it's the core of their class action. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.441974/gov.uscourts.cand.441974.9.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.44...
  - seanalltogether 2y ago
kelseydh 2y ago
Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud because the offender is receiving commissions for sales they did not generate, thus defrauding legitimate advertisers and companies paying for the advertising. Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension for sales it did not generate. They are representing themselves as the one who made the referral, and receiving commissions for doing so, when they did not.
- maratc 2y ago
  > Cookie stuffing is criminal fraud There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.) > Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud. This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave it aside as it's irrelevant to this discussion. > Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension I have not seen any evidence that Honey's extension stuffs more than one cookie for any given transaction. In my understanding "cookie stuffing" refers to a practice of stuffing a ton of cookies for one transaction, not to a practice of "stuffing" one cookie for multiple transactions. Moreover, "cookie stuffing" is not a result of "stuffing" a "cookie", just like "guinea pig" is not a "pig" and it didn't come from a place known as "Guinea". "Cookie stuffing" is a specific legal term describing a certain well-defined behavior, and it would be inaccurate to apply it to anything that involves "cookies" and "stuffing". In other words, if I put some jelly inside an Oreo, this would not qualify as "criminal fraud" known as "cookie stuffing", even though it can be said that by doing that I'm "stuffing" (putting "stuff") inside a "cookie" (Oreo). That's why I asked if you're a lawyer -- they usually understand that e.g. "wire fraud" could be done without any "wire", for instance completely wirelessly -- or that someone committing a "regular" fraud while holding a pack of wire in their hand does not commit "wire fraud". P.S. The search for "stuffing" in the filing you attached brings no results, so I assume the lawyers also don't argue that Honey engaged in "cookie stuffing" (which is criminal).
  - schiffern 2y ago
belorn 2y ago
From what I can find, the definition of cookie stuffing is to deceptive claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate. Its the deception that is illegal, not the act of setting cookies. As such, the amount, ton, or a few, does not change the definition. If they are claiming credit for the sale then they are either doings it in good faith or in bad faith. Which definition/source for cookie stuffing are you looking at?
- maratc 2y ago
  > claim credit for sales that they did not facilitate They will argue that by providing a coupon that lowered the price for the customer they did in fact facilitate the sale. IANAL but this sounds reasonable to me. Less so for the sales they did not find a coupon for (even if they argue they've tried). The rest of your comment folds under this. I guess we'll see how this plays out, but for what it's worth, the attached filing does not argue "cookie stuffing". (It argues other things.) This may also go to a completely different direction of e.g. "securities fraud" -- the SEC may argue that PayPal, as a public company, has advertised their Honey service as "finding the best deals for their customers", and on the basis of that claim some of the investors chose to buy its shares. If this was a lie, the shares sale was made under false premises, and that seems like "securities fraud".
immibis 2y ago
One doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand that big business always wins. Those guys weren't big business, but PayPal is.

TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago

but they provide coupons and stuff. So it's more a "service", and they get their cut by offering "refferals".

TheKarateKid 2y ago

This reminds me of how as times changed, once illegal behaviors are now considered normal because "big tech" embraced it. Remember Kazaa, BonziBuddy, Gator (The OG adware), etc.? They were demonized for collecting data on all the web traffic you were doing it. They got sued by the FTC and were forced to change their business models and/or close down. Then Facebook, Google came along and did the same thing in the early 2010's except via cookies and Javascript, but somehow that's ok. Even worse, it's considered a normal business practice. It amazes me that Honey has been able to become so popular given it's business model has always been more of a hack than an actual product. How did commission programs not sue them for fraud? Probably because they had good ole Silicon Valley VC money to scare them off.