What I Discovered About Honey's Legal Issues With Google's Terms of Service

I wanted to share some really interesting findings about Honey's browser extension practices. As someone who's been in this tech space, I've done a little poking around into their practices and how they stack up against Google's legal requirements. What I found was pretty eye-opening.

If you have been living under a rock for some time now, then I'll get you to stop there and watch the video below.

Let's Talk About Affiliate Links First

Honey's doing something pretty sneaky, let's call it shady, with affiliate links. When you click on a creator's affiliate link, Honey's extension jumps in and basically hijacks it. They open a hidden tab (yeah, you don't even see it happen) and replace the creator's affiliate cookie with their own. Pretty wild, right?

Looking at Google's Chrome Web Store Developer Agreement, this is a clear problem. Section 4.4.1 specifically says developers can't "knowingly violate a third party's terms of service" or create "misleading information about an application's purpose." Section 4.4.4 goes even further, prohibiting "accessing or using our services in fraudulent or deceptive ways."

The Coupon Code Situation

Now, this is where it gets even more interesting. Remember how Honey always claimed they'd find you all the available coupon codes? Well, based on recent findings, that's not exactly true. They're actually being selective about which codes they show, based on their partnerships with merchants.

Google's ToS has something to say about this too. Section 4.4.1 explicitly prohibits creating "a spammy user experience... or misleading information about an application's purpose." When you're telling users you're showing them all available codes but actually holding some back? That's pretty much the definition of misleading.

The Legal Stuff

I've identified several major legal issues:

Federal Law Violations (USA)

1. The Lanham Act (false advertising laws)
   • Making false claims about their service
   • Engaging in deceptive practices
2. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
   • The whole cookie manipulation thing
   • Using protected computer systems for their own gain

Google's Terms of Service Violations

Let me break down the specific sections they're potentially violating:

1. Section 4.3:
   "If the users provide you with... personal information, you must make the users aware that the information will be available to your Product"
   • Honey's not super clear about how they're using our data
2. Section 4.4.1:
   • Prohibits violating third-party terms of service
   • Bans creating misleading experiences
   • No deceptive practices allowed
3. Section 4.4.4:
   • Specifically prohibits fraudulent behavior
   • Bans deceptive use of the service

What This Means for Us Creators

This hits close to home for creators. When Honey replaces our affiliate cookies, they're literally taking money out of our pockets. Think about it - when you click my link because you trust my recommendation, shouldn't I get credit for that?

What Could Happen to Honey?

Based on everything I've found, Honey could be facing:

• FTC investigations
• Lawsuits from creators like us
• Getting kicked off the Chrome Web Store
• State-level legal issues

The Business Partnership Problem

Here's something else I discovered that's pretty concerning. Honey's relationship with businesses creates a "conflict of interest." Here's how it works:

1. Honey partners with businesses to control what discount codes are shown
2. They negotiate commission rates that are often lower than what individual creators get
3. They effectively create a "walled garden" where they control both:
   • What discounts consumers see
   • How much commission gets paid out

This practice potentially violates several sections of Google's Terms of Service:

Section 4.4.1 comes into play again because it prohibits "misleading information about an application's purpose." When Honey claims to find the best deals but is actually showing deals based on business partnerships, that's potentially misleading.

But here's where it gets really interesting - this could also violate antitrust laws. When a platform:

• Controls access to discount codes
• Manipulates affiliate commissions
• Creates exclusive partnerships that harm competition
• Uses its market position to force favorable terms

They might be engaging in anti-competitive behaviour under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Think about it - they're essentially:

1. Acting as a gatekeeper for discount codes
2. Controlling commission rates
3. Potentially forcing businesses into exclusive arrangements
4. Using their size (backed by PayPal) to pressure businesses

Where Do We Go From Here?

I think we need:

• Way more transparency from browser extensions
• Better rules around affiliate marketing
• Actual protection for creator affiliate relationships
• Clear disclosure requirements