842
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
842 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
60314 readers
2874 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 another!
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In this case the class action would be youtubers and other content creators not users of Honey.
Then it remains to be proven that it is illegal to poach affiliate links like that. Because Honey says they just follow strictly the "last click" rule that is common practice in the field.
It's bullshit but if that bullshit rule is indeed the standard practice then it will be hard to fight.
That's kind of like a looter invoking the 'finders keepers' defense. Last click isn't a law.
What if there is no law about who gets affiliate money?
That's okay, because there is a law about interfering with someone else's contacted agreement.
Could it not be seen as a deliberate deceit to avoid adequate compensation as per any sponsorship agreement though? Such practice can't be legal surely?
Even if they tried to weasel it into the terms of a sponsorship agreement one would assume it would be considered null as it goes against the very purpose of the contract?
Feel like Legal Eagle wouldn't waste their time and resources on a class action if they didn't have strong enough grounds for a fight? (And would instead make a video explaining why it would be pointless to do so)
Technically, there is not necessarily a partnership in a situation where an affiliate link was stolen. Any user with the extension would see his affiliation given to PayPal.
Also, I can't help but think it will be very difficult to account for how much money was "redirected" by Honey. The creator would need data from YouTube that I don't think is logged for much time. So you wouldn't know who clicked and when and even after that I thing the vendor of the product would need to be involved also.
Who knows what LegalEagle intends to do, they shouldn't be too clear on their intent and keep their strategy secret. Maybe they hope for some kind of settlement because I think this is more damaging in term of PR than it will ever be in terms of fines. It's like the recent case of Apple, they choosed to pay to expedite the process but never admitted guilt?
Again I'm no lawyer let's trust Legal Eagle and see where it goes. But PayPal will be a strong case for sure.
Yeah exactly. You can't force arbitration on a YouTuber or other affiliate because a user agreed to your Terms of Service. I know our legal system is fucked, but it's not that fucked.