[FateOfNations]

This is a messy legal situation…

For the most part, it looks like consumers weren't directly harmed aside from the false promises about "finding the best deal," but consumers weren't paying anything to Honey for that promise.

The harmed parties, the referring affiliates whose links were overwritten, would have to argue that Honey, as a third party, tortiously interfered with them and the merchants paying the affiliate commissions. Third-party claims are challenging, especially when the merchants seem complicit.

[margana]

I would argue that the consumer was deceived as well. People may click the links intentionally to also support the creators. They expect the affiliate money to go to that creator. Saying the consumer was not deceived would be similar to arguing that stealing money donated to charity doesn't hurt the ones who donated since they didn't gain anything directly either way.

[kelseydh]

Honey by withholding and hiding better coupon codes submitted by users, was betraying the service they marketed for users and were harming them with higher prices.

[croemer]

Shouldn't affiliates sue the merchants for allowing the steal? The merchants surely must notice how often Honey steals the referrals and they benefit likely by laying less in referral fees. So this is collusion by merchant and Honey against the affiliate.

[jren207]

It seems that the merchants were strong-armed into a mafia-style deal with Honey, in that if they didn't partner with them then Honey would suggest the better coupon codes that not everyone was able to have. If they did partner with them then they would be allowed to suppress those particular coupons. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If I were a merchant I'd definitely prefer to have the original affiliates rewarded as they are the ones actually driving the visits rather than Honey stealing the commission after the user is already there intending to buy.