9to5Google reports on Honey Chrome extension's loss of 4 million users following exposure of deceptive affiliate code hijacking practices. The article documents corporate misconduct, policy remediation through Chrome's new standards, and consumer protection outcomes, exemplifying investigative journalism's essential role in holding corporations accountable and protecting digital consumer rights. Overall, the content advocates for transparency, corporate responsibility, and consumer welfare while demonstrating free expression's critical function in human rights protection.
It's ironic that probably the biggest victims were youtubers and other "influencers" who mindlessly promoted this extension to their viewers, for money of course.
I'm not a honey user but I thought this section was interesting:
> This gets a bit technical but in the video, Jonathon carefully shows you that the ‘NV_MC_LC’ cookie changes from Linus Tech Tips -> Paypal when a user engages with Honey. What he must have seen is that there is also a ‘NV_MC_FC’ cookie that stays affiliated with Linus Tech Tips and is NOT changed to Paypal. In this case LC stands for ‘last click’ and FC for ‘first click’. In the video he seems to claim that there is no first click cookie and only a last click cookie - this claim is false.
> In my DM conversation with Jonathon he claimed that he noticed the FC cookie but didn’t think it was relevant and that he was confused by it. I wonder, as an investigative journalist, did he think to ask anyone at NewEgg or the affiliate networks to explain it to him before he threw damning accusations at an industry he didn’t understand?
The whole world of affiliate marketing and lead generation seems so thoroughly and irredeemably scummy, I can't really come up with much sympathy for anyone here. It's just middlemen all the way down, and everything is more expensive because they all have their little fingers in the pie.
Have a friend high up at one of the “Big 3” in this space.
The entire business model is predicated on injecting themselves as the last click for attribution even when they weren’t remotely responsible for the conversion. Cool business, but can’t keep going on forever without someone catching on.
It’s still shocking to me that in this whole ordeal many reviewers escaped scrutiny. Getting a cut of a sale of a product that you portray yourself as impartially reviewing is insanely immoral. Who cares if these people scammed themselves in the service of scamming me?
The alternative to a company that is hiding real coupon codes and stealing affiliate marketing dollars?
Honestly, there's no good answer here because most of the work is manual, not automated, and there are a lot of opportunities for bad actors. It's just a bad model in general.
Genuine question I was wondering when this went down - wasn’t this completely unknown at the time? If that’s the case, I feel like I can’t blame those who promoted it. I don’t have all the info though.
important context!
surprisingly more than i expected! 20% loss of userbase is devastating for an extension, although no doubt not enough for any long-term change in strategy... :)
Signing up for stuff. Pretty much every online retailer will pay you via discount for your email address.
I set up a specific junk email address for this purpose and give to every retailer I shop with for their initial x% discount, and I receive coupon codes going forward.
From what I can tell, this is the best way to get discounts. Retailers are generous with people they know a lot about. The flip side is that you're going to be a target for their tricks. If you click on a link or add something to your cart, they are going to send you reminders and even more discounts to get you to buy that item.
Personally, I've been happy with this setup. I only see the promo spam when I want to. And my email becomes a personalized coupon code search engine that contains much better deals than you could get by using retailmenot or similar sites.
I got a weird feeling from the MegaLag video, but overall don't think Honey are entirely in the clear either. From the AMA it seems Honey has been in the business of taking some/all affiliate revenue even in cases where it finds no coupons - sounds like the sites are fine/happy with this, but I'm sure people who post affiliate links are not.
Something that has been making the sponsorship rounds now is Ground News[0] which I have found very useful with just the free tier. But given how many people I have seen sponsored by them, I wonder if there is some catch, especially because I can’t imagine that many people sign up for the paid service. I can’t think of what that catch would be though, they do not have unique access to personal data, and I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that they have any information agenda.
To be honest? The majority of discount culture is a disgusting trap where retailers inflate default MSRPs and manipulate price histories so they can put big percent signs on the products to bring them down to normal and FOMO/gouge anyone with time constraints.
T-shirts and vacuums aren't perishable. Make everything cheaper all the time, adjust the cost to reflect actual supply/demand, and stop the wiggling banners and big signs and calculations every time I want to buy anything.
It's like an app for finding out the minimum you have to tip for a waitress to be able to survive. Maybe that's not the solution.
I saw that and I'm not convinced this changes anything. The fact that Honey is inserting itself into the affiliate attribution chain at all when it did literally nothing is still wrong to me.
I remember when this was called cookie stuffing, and eBay even sent a guy to jail for doing it with their affiliate program. That’s the same eBay that owned PayPal, which now owns Honey…
This sounds like a distraction. "seems to claim that there is no first click cookie". He brought that up, it doesn't control the payout and doesn't change the result from what I understand. FC cookie is not relevant, Megalag was focusing on what was important information to impart to viewers. If they clicked on an affiliate link from their favorite creator, using Honey hijacked that action of support without disclosing anything.
Extortion, essentially. Honey will actually give users the largest available discount if the retailer doesn't buy into the affiliate program (i.e. the retailer loses money). If they do agree, then the retailer can limit the coupons and discount code shown to customers through Honey.
Marketers monitor the conversion rates very closely. Chances are some people caught on to the shenanigans within 24 hours, but couldn't figure out which part of the lead generation ecosystem was cheating.
What Honey did robbed content publishers of ad revenue, advertisers lead valuations, and end consumer confidence (bait-and-switch.)
I wouldn't want to be in the blast radius of that legal mess... Popcorn ready for when the judge defines the scope of who is liable =3
Online marketing firms already had a credibility problem long before Honey showed up.
The only metric business people care about is whether the lead converts into sales. People often don't want to think about how the hotdog was made at the factory. =3
We've been working on a product called Ketch AI that does some similar things but hopefully adds more value further up the chain.
We track sales from retailers, and use historic sales information to recommend if the sale is good or not (ex some retailers always have XX% off, so you only want to jump on sales that are better than that). In addition, we'll let you sign up for digest alerts, so ideally you get 1 notification a day with all the good sales across all the brands you shop at, rather than hundreds of spammy marketing emails a day.
We don't clickjack affiliate links like Honey, and don't have deals with retailers incentivizing us to promote deals that are worse for the consumer.
It's actually a trrickle-down system. Smaller youtubers who have never heard of the extension (let alone were approached to advertise) may be hurt the most, because a larger youtuber who took the deal advertised it. e.g. a tech youtuber could be hit a lot if Linus Tech Tips advertise Honey, because they have a strong overlap in subscribers.
It was something a youtuber I was subscribed to was talking about in how he was still seeing his affiliate numbers drop overthe last year or so, and it was actually putting his existing deals in danger. Then as a test after the expose, he asked a few family members who did use his links if they also installed Honey. He definitely never advertised Honey himself.
Now what I'd love is an extension that would inject a person of my choosing as the last click.
Amazon et al don't allow you to offer this as an affiliate program partner, not without a special and custom agreement at least, but if the extension was partner-agnostic and released by a party unaffiliated with Amazon in any way, there's nothing they could realistically do about it.
It'd be one way to bring Amazon Smile back, and on many more sites than just Amazon.
I figured it just made money by tracking and selling your browsing history, it's owned by PayPal after all. I was shocked to learn about the cookie-stuffing. That's like, arguably a crime.
Do you have a source for that? I assume they just sold browsing data, since that's the easiest way to make money in this sort of space (or, I guess, used it to better figure out what kind of credit card you'd consider applying for?)
Retailers have budget to spend and have that spend deliver a return. It's just a simple return on investment.
CJ, one of the biggest affiliate companies even encourages working with shopping extensions.
https://junction.cj.com/cj-value-of-browser-extension-study-...
Eno? Up until recently, that was the only way to generate virtual cards. It's a useful feature for retailers that are too small for me to trust their security. I guess I'll need to start using their website now that it is an option.
Shame so many creators took the Honey paycheck, even while Honey was taking money out of their pocket by stealing affiliate links. I guess few really vet their sponsors. Not even LTT or MrBeast!
Strong advocacy for free expression and investigative journalism. Article celebrates how public information exposure (17-million-view YouTube investigation) drove corporate accountability, exemplifying free press as essential human rights mechanism.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article explicitly credits 'a video on YouTube by the channel MegaLag' with exposing misconduct and accumulating 'over 17 million views'.
Article names journalist Ben Schoon and byline provides transparency about reporting source.
Content reports that YouTube exposure 'amassed over 17 million views' and directly caused 'Honey has now lost over 4 million users', demonstrating free press impact.
Article is published on major tech platform without access restrictions, enabling broad public awareness.
Inferences
The article celebrates investigative journalism and public information access as drivers of corporate accountability, positioning free expression as essential to human rights protection.
Coverage emphasizes how transparent public discourse enabled users to make informed decisions about technology, supporting Article 19's vision of informed democratic participation.
Narrative framing positions free press as essential mechanism for exposing corporate deception and driving policy change.
Strong advocacy for consumer protection and adequate standard of living. Article documents how deceptive practices violated consumer welfare and advocates for policy remedies ensuring fair commercial practices.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article details how Honey misled users about coupon availability and benefits, violating fair commercial standards.
Article reports policy implementation: 'new Chrome policy has taken effect which prevents Honey, and extensions like it, from practices including taking over affiliate codes without disclosure'.
Article documents consumer response: 'Honey has now lost over 4 million users on Chrome...down from its peak of 20 million', showing consumer rejection of deceptive practices.
Content makes consumer protection information publicly available without access barriers.
Inferences
The article advocates for consumer protection by exposing deceptive practices that undermine fair commerce and adequate commercial standards.
Documentation of policy remedies demonstrates institutional commitment to consumer welfare as a fundamental right requiring transparency and accountability.
Public information access enables consumers to make informed decisions about digital tools and services, supporting adequate standard of living in digital economy.
Article documents Chrome policy implementation as effective remedy for deceptive practices, explicitly demonstrating regulatory action against corporate misconduct.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'new Chrome policy has taken effect which prevents Honey, and extensions like it, from practices including taking over affiliate codes without disclosure'.
Article reports: 'Honey has since updated its extension listing with disclosure', showing compliance with policy requirements.
Inferences
The article's focus on policy implementation demonstrates how regulatory action provides effective remedies for corporate rights violations.
Documentation of enforcement and compliance shows how institutional mechanisms protect consumers through mandatory accountability.
Strong advocacy for corporate responsibility and community duties. Article holds Honey accountable for deceptive practices affecting users and creators, demonstrating rights-holder accountability perspective.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article extensively documents Honey's specific deceptive practices and quantifies resulting consumer harm: '4 million Chrome users' lost.
Article credits policy implementation as enforcing corporate responsibility: 'new Chrome policy has taken effect which prevents Honey...from practices'.
Article notes compliance: 'Honey has since updated its extension listing with disclosure', demonstrating accountability mechanisms.
Inferences
The article's focus on corporate misconduct and policy enforcement exemplifies community duties and corporate accountability as enforceable human rights principles.
Quantification of user losses (4 million) frames corporate responsibility as measurable obligation to stakeholders.
Public reporting enforces corporate duties through transparency mechanisms and institutional accountability.
Content frames corporate deception as unjust and invokes accountability through exposure, grounding the article in principles of justice and human dignity in commerce.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article reports Honey extension was exposed for hijacking affiliate codes without user disclosure or benefit.
Article documents Chrome policy implementation to prevent such practices and Honey's compliance with disclosure requirements.
Article states user losses (4 million) as direct consequence of exposure and policy enforcement.
Inferences
The article's detailed exposure of deception and emphasis on policy remedies invokes Preamble principles of justice and accountability as responses to human rights violations.
Framing corporate deception as harmful to consumers grounds the narrative in human dignity within commercial relationships.
Article documents how Honey's affiliate code hijacking affected online creators' work compensation, advocating for fair labor practices in digital creator economies.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article describes Honey 'removing affiliate codes from other refferers such as online creators', disrupting their income from affiliate relationships.
Article emphasizes these were creator income sources being hijacked without authorization or compensation.
Inferences
Reporting on affiliate code hijacking illustrates how deceptive corporate practices undermine fair compensation for digital workers and content creators.
Article documents how deceptive commercial practices undermine fair social order in digital commerce, advocating for systemic protections grounded in justice.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article describes affiliate code hijacking as violation of fair commercial principles and trust relationships.
Article implies consumer dignity was violated by deceptive practices, advocating public awareness of such violations as a dignity protection mechanism.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article describes Honey as having hijacked affiliate codes and misled users about coupon availability.
Article documents that users discovered these deceptions after exposure, violating trust relationships.
Inferences
Detailed reporting on user deception suggests recognition that consumer dignity includes the right to truthful information about products and services.
Content discusses how Honey's affiliate code hijacking violated users' property rights in their purchasing decisions and affected online creators' property rights in their affiliate relationships.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Article describes Honey removing 'affiliate codes from other refferers such as online creators and website' without authorization.
Article notes this occurred 'even if it didn't have coupon codes or cash back to offer in return', violating creators' property relationships.
Inferences
Documentation of affiliate code hijacking illustrates property rights violations in digital commerce and creator economies.
Content reports on privacy violations inherent in Honey's undisclosed data practices (hijacking affiliate codes behind users' backs), documenting privacy harms without fully resolving them.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article describes Honey's practices as operating 'behind the scenes with businesses to control which codes would appear'.
Article documents extension practices operated 'without disclosure' and 'without benefit to the extension's users'.
DCP identifies GTM tracking infrastructure and ad tracking mechanisms on domain without transparent privacy policy in provided content.
Inferences
Reporting on undisclosed data collection practices (affiliate code hijacking) documents privacy violations but does not resolve underlying structural privacy concerns.
The site's own tracking infrastructure creates tension with privacy protections implicitly advocated through reporting on privacy violations.
Site implements Google Tag Manager (GTM-THGGVXB, GTM-W5LZ9VX) and dataLayer tracking without explicit privacy policy visible in provided content. Two separate GTM instances suggest comprehensive tracking infrastructure.
Terms of Service
—
Terms of Service not accessible from provided content.
Identity & Mission
Mission
+0.05
Article 19
9to5Google positions itself as technology news outlet; mission implies free expression and information dissemination, but no explicit mission statement in provided content.
Editorial Code
—
Editorial guidelines or code of conduct not provided in content sample.
Ownership
+0.05
Article 19
Copyright holder identified as '925.co' in schema; parent organization identified but relationship to 9to5Google not explicit in provided content.
Access & Distribution
Access Model
+0.10
Article 25
Appears to be free-access public web content. No paywall or subscription requirement evident in provided markup.
Ad/Tracking
-0.20
Article 12
Dual Google Tag Manager implementation and dataLayer tracking infrastructure visible. No explicit opt-out or tracking consent mechanism provided in content sample. Affects privacy rights.
Accessibility
+0.10
Article 2
Page includes screen-reader-text CSS class and semantic HTML structure (NewsArticle schema), suggesting baseline accessibility consideration. However, no explicit ARIA labels or alt text visible in provided markup.
Article is freely accessible without paywall or paywalls, supporting public information access. Editorial structure emphasizes journalism's accountability function.
Free public access to information about consumer protection issues and policy solutions supports consumer welfare awareness and informed decision-making.
Article provides free public access to information about corporate misconduct and policy remedies, supporting transparent discourse about systemic justice.
The phrase 'shady tactics' appears repeatedly throughout article as evaluative descriptor rather than neutral terminology; characterizes practices with emotional connotation rather than purely technical language.