Charlie himself could try to join in the muticlass lawsuit because he used honey and most likely gotten money taken away from him …. Nothing they could do
>Says the company skimming bank credentials and having such shit security they are just hemorrhaging bank accounts and personal information to the dark web every minute
I remember hearing that a group I liked lost a sponsorship because literally nobody used their affiliate link I really wonder if honey was the direct reason they lost it, they have a few hundred thousand subscribers so zero people seems insane.
@@artisanmain yeah I thought that too when they joked about it. but at the same time i personally am not buying manscaped and I’m not sure if i know many people that would
they really need to look into pie is well, they are aggressively marketing that as being one of the creators of honey. What's odd is i thought RUclips was against ad blockers yet this pie marketing is all over the site.
What better way to get people to flock to Pie, than for YT to be vehemently "against" ad blockers? I wouldn't be surprised if YT was getting a nice big slice of Pie's revenue. It would be another "perfect" scam. Step 1: Claim to be against ad blockers, which drives your ad inundated users to seek out any ad blocker, that's available. Step 2: Endorse an ad blocker, on your site, causing people to flock to it. Step 3: Sit back and rake in all of that "user money" that they didn't want to give you, from watching your ads. Either way, YT gets your money.
I work for a company that makes money from affiliate commissions, and now I'm wondering how much money we lost to Honey even never having anything to do with them.
You failed to mention the opportunity cost lost for creators. A youtuber might have lost future work with a sponsorship because that sponsorship decided not to sponsor them again due to numbers not performing as well as they would've liked. When in reality, honey could've just been taking those customers.
@@DamianQualshythat brings in question, if u are a small time creator and this if ur first or maybe 2nd or 3rd sponsorship, so if other sponsors are only looking at how many people previously clicked before. Then wouldn’t honey be harming way more people if that’s the case?
You should add “you must ’you must pay every time you agree to the site ToS” then mak em them agree to the ToS every time they join as well as make them agree to you being able to automatically transfer money to your wallet.
Thats called licencing. If you buy something like enterprise licence for Visual Studio etc thats exactly how it works. But youre also not paying for the app youre paying for the microsoft contact number that picks up the phone.
10:43 Disney literally did that. A guy’s partner died from an allergic reaction due to Disneys neglect and they wanted to sue, but Disney says if you have Disney+ you legally can’t sue Disney for anything. RIDICULOUS.
Correction... they HAD disney + like a year or 2 before they made their trip so it wasn't even active. disney was trying ot argue that they were still bound to the t&c even after they terminated their + service.
@@jbone665 Which frankly should slap them with an automatic double the amount they're asking for. WHICH ISN'T EVEN MUCH TO BEGIN WITH FOR DISNEY. Disney is actually wasting more money trying to fight this than it would cost to just pay the person.
The case he's referring to is a wrongful death case being brought before Disney for a woman who died from a severe allergic reaction at a Disney resort after repeatedly telling staff she was allergic and to not add the ingredient to her meal and they did anyway. Disney's lawyers tried to claim that the lawsuit was invalid because the family had Disney+, where there's Terms and Conditions that all disputes are to be settled by arbitration. The Court however, threw that out because no reasonable person would assume signing up for Disney+ means Disney has immunity for getting them killed.
Thats last part is not true, Disney retracked their request for arbitration after major public backlash, but this question was never actually settled in court.
Almost all of this is wrong one way or the other. LegalEagle himself explains on a video. TL;DW: Disney wanted to force arbitration (which is usually fast and involves settling for money) instead of a legal battle, because legal action should have been taken against the restaurant instead. Disney doesn't own or even manage anything about the restaurant themselves, they just lease the land and feature them on their webpage. The guy tried to involve Disney by using the fact that the restaurant's allergen-free claims featured in Disney's webpage. Which is why Disney tried to use the terms of a digital service like Disney+ to force arbitration instead. So it wasn't as frivolous as it seems, people just thought it was because Disney are kind of an evil megacorp.
The TOS doesn't even matter because Honey steals the affiliate commission regardless of whether the affiliate has done any business with Honey or not. Creators who never even heard of Honey are affected; they never agreed to any Honey TOS. It may be more difficult for a consumer who installed the extension to file a suit, but it's fair game for creators/affiliates.
For the part of affiliate stealing, those who make money via providing affiliate links can go legally. End consumers also got a case here, since honey allegedly partnered with sellers and prevented consumer from getting best discount coupon. I don't know how many law suits are incoming. Brace yourself, payapal.
Yea, the class isn't comprised of individuals using the ToS, they're not the users bringing suit, they never signed the ToS, so what might be in it is entirely pointless.
Everyone knows Legal Eagle but shoutout to Attorney Tom & America's Attorney. Both are also on the suit and have made awesome content on here for many years.
America's Attorney is a sleeper channel, bro has 30k subs but has made really well done and informative videos for a hot min. Attorney Tom is something special, Bros a bit odd but something so down to earth and real about his content.
@@JourneysADRIFT fr. Found out about America's Attorney way back when Coffeezilla released the Cryptozoo investigation series. Underrated, but absolutely goated. Took me by surprise when he, Legal Eagle, and Attorney Tom decided to team-up against Honey, and if I'm not mistaken, AA was the one who announced first. 2025 starting off strong.
at around 4:00 , its even funnier actually. If you manually put in a better coupon code for like dominos or subway, theres a chance that they'd overwrite your better coupon with the worse deal.
I had both Honey and Swagbucks, Swagbucks usually had a coupon that worked for Pizza, Honey NEVER did. But Honey offered "Activate me and get 8%-15% back as Honey Gold." - So I'd do that. My coupon still worked as intended BUT the Honey gold? Never came. I had honey for like 4 years, never got above 200 gold. No matter what I did or clicked, no matter what they suggested. I eventually just ignored Honey - not sure why I ever kept it honestly lol. Meanwhile every cashback I've had work was Swagbucks. And I'm sure if I looked I'd find out they're just as bad or something, but still....
There's still one thing I don't understand. When Charlie says even if Honey doesn't find a coupon it sends a popup to get the last click and puts in their affiliate link. If there's no discount, how would they get money from the purchase?
MegaLag's subs have BLOWN UP with this video! I've been following his stuff since he had fewer than 10k subs when he was doing airtags that he was tracking through packages he was sending to North Korea and stuff, but his content has only been getting better and better of the last couple of years. Can't wait to see part 2 and 3 of his video series.
and the cycle will continue. honey will go down and another will take it's place and finding work arounds to make it near impossible to detect the scummy shit they do
I'm convinced they weighed the risk vs benefits of purchasing a scam company for $4 billion and knew they could most likely walk away with well over that amount in profits when it was eventually exposed. I bet they had a great time congratulating each other over such an ingenious business move...
One point to note: the Terms of Service DO NOT MATTER for this lawsuit! The ToS is between the Honey user and PayPal. Your grandmother (or Wendover Productions) DID NOT "SIGN" that ToS. Your grandmother had a contract with Tupperware, NOT PayPal or the Honey user. (I've seen an online lawyer get this wrong twice, and it's driving me crazy 🤪.)
also this goes much deeper. honey isn't just stealing from "creators" and "blogs", they're also stealing from free platforms like youtube themselves. if you buy something from an ad on youtube, cookies are saved recognizing youtube as the referrer. then same story, when you use honey last click, they override it. this one's gonna be a honey vs the world type shi
Most of this information is irrelevant anyway since all of the clauses like this in a "ToS" aren't actionable. Any legal contract is still subject to written laws and cannot subvert your legal rights.
Adding the "you can't sue us" is the digital equivalent of rock trucks that claim they're "NOT responsible for broken windshields!". Your load isn't secured properly and is causing paint chips, flat tires, and broken glass. Good luck with that bumper sticker defense.
It doesn't matter what their TOS says when the majority of impacted parties never agreed to it. An affiliate with no connection to Honey can still have their commission stolen by Honey without their knowledge. Without knowledge of Honey, they wouldn't have agreed to the TOS and therefore not be bound by it.
Moreover, as cookie stuffing is an illegal activity (its definitely a form of fraud) TOS does not cover them. All the language covering their arbitration clause instantly becomes null and void (as it also states in their TOS).
I am no lawyer and I'm not from the states. But the idea that you can "sign" a "piece of paper" that says 'You can't sue me for doing something illegal' is insane to me.
@@malcomchase9777TOS generally isn't a protection from blatantly illegal activities, it's more a cover for things that aren't EXPLICITLY illegal but may result in a lawsuit from an affected party/parties. Now that doesn't justify it in my eyes, not at all, but there is a distinction. With that being said TOS wouldn't necessarily protect a company in court either, if whatever it is they're doing is deemed egregious enough to not be reasonably expected to be upheld by their customers. It acts more as a deterrent for average people who will go "well they said it in their terms and conditions, so I can't possibly sue them", even if that isn't necessarily true.
@@kingkeshi1140 Even if a RUclipsr can show that their affiliate link was altered, they still need to prove that they lost money as a result. For a class action lawsuit to succeed, the RUclipsrs need to show tangible, quantifiable financial harm, which is not always easy in affiliate marketing. Proving that a sale was lost due to Honey’s affiliate link changes would require detailed, accurate tracking data. Without clear evidence that the altered link prevented the RUclipsr from receiving commissions they would have earned, the case could fail. Additionally, if RUclipsrs are earning from other affiliate links or if the loss of commissions is relatively minor in the larger scheme, it may not rise to the level of harm needed for a class action.Another challenge is that Honey (or any coupon-finding service) isn't legally obligated to display every possible coupon or the highest-value coupon in all cases. There could be technical limitations or reasons why some coupons aren't shown. For example, some coupons might have expiration dates, or certain discounts might be exclusive to specific customer segments (e.g., email subscribers, first-time buyers). If the coupon-finding tool is functioning as advertised-i.e., it's finding coupons-it's not necessarily misleading if it doesn't show every available coupon or the most valuable one. This is especially true if Honey makes no guarantees about showing all coupons.
10:00 This may protect Honey against lawsuits from creators who had an agreement with them, but not ones who didn't. The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of creators who had nothing to do with Honey.
@@Sam_Saraguy Ideally, yes, but the courts may uphold the forced arbitration clauses, even where fraud is alleged. i.e. The fraud is still only an allegation/dispute, and the creators who signed agreements with Honey accepted arbitration as the venue for determining whether fraud occurred at all. So they'd still have to overcome the hurdle of proving fraud at arbitration first, and that would be on an individual basis.
Creators who had an agreement with Honey weren't end users, so I don't think the TOS would matter here. There might be something in the sponsorship contracts, but only the creators would know that. It really only affects end users who might sue honey after using it.
@@madaemon it wont. You cannot put anything in your TOS like this and expect it it be upheld. "You cannot sue us if you use our product" will never fly.
Seems like leagle eagle was fairly confident that just about anyone affected by honey affiliate links could join the lawsuit (outside of consumers), so I assume creators have a strong case too.
10:28 Even if the class action clause in the Honey terms of service were legally binding, that would only apply to the actual users who signed up for it. People who neither used nor promoted it who lost commissions are entitled to sue the pants off those leaches. As far as those who had actual promotion deals with Honey, that’s another question.
would this not be considered unconscionable? Like at this point anyone can just make whatever malicious program. Drop a lorem ipsum ass TOS like any other, and sneak in the end there "oh btw by clicking a button you can't sue me"
The thing is, Legal Eagle's class action isn't for users of Honey. It's for RUclipsrs who have had their affiliate codes poached by Honey's shady cookie replacement. The sponsorship contract with these RUclipsrs has nothing to do with Honey's ToS. Now, whether there's an arbitration clause in the sponsorship contract is another matter, but i would assume LE has done his research on that.
@@perciusmandate except for that fact that it wasn't fraud and was exactly what was advertised? The whole suit isn't because they were lying, it's because creators didn't have to agree for it to affect them directly.
It's up there with waking up in the middle of the night because you hear a noise at the front door, so you go to check and hear a very quiet "Nothing on 2... Little click on 3. Back to 1. Feels set... Maybe release a little tension? Oh! Big click out of 1 and we're in!"
@@tylerhartley5031 no one is crying here buddy, you ain't cool nor better for saying such simple thing to someone who is explaining like the adult you are not.
Ive seen judges literally say "dude, your terms of service is 47 pages long. No one is reading that." And then proceed to say that due to the extreme length of the document, it was harmful to consumers and couldnt be made legally binding
I once wrote a TOS for a website. I put in that by agreeing to the TOS you also agree that in the event you find a Genie lamp, I get one of the wishes. Despite like 10,000 people agreeing I never got any genie wishes... TOS are not legally binding, the penalty for breaking them is not getting to use the service anymore. That is all unless you break actual laws.
@@lilharm "I have like, an invincible shield that can block any attack, and, like, a super sweet sword that does infinity + 2 damage" -Not Eric Cartman
The BIG one in my head rent-free, is them saying theyre using a smaller coupon, but then using a larger one, and then scalping the rest for themselves OUTRIGHT; straight out of our pockets, and THEN stealing commission.
just because you sign a contract saying that they are allowed to do illegal activity doesnt mean they are allowed to. You cant use a contract to get around the law, the terms of service is going to get thrown out.
10:41 The people loosing commissions to honey wouldn't even be people who accepted these terms of service, so the fact that they are even here in the terms of service are still not binding to the aspect of the class action lawsuit. This only proves that PayPal-honey knew this was blatantly illegal if not morally wrong and lawsuit worthy.
Exactly. I think LegalEagle mentioned that too. A creator who has never even heard of Honey could easily be affected. Let's use MeUndies as an example. Say you're watching a video and the creator advertises MeUndies and provides an affiliate link in their description. So you click your creator's affiliate link and are brought to their site. Honey pops up in the corner and says: "We can't find any coupons for this!". You click to close their pop-up. Clicking the pop-up at all now takes away that content creators affiliate link and replaces it with their own, despite them not ever being involved with Honey. That content creator never agreed to Honey's terms of service, so Honey's ToS do not apply to them at all.
Even then, I don't even think the class action waiver would work if they were being sued for false advertising (which there is a case for) - again, you can't just say "you can't sue us if we do something illegal :)"
Actually customers who used Honey were scammed as well. Honey took money from companies to actively HIDE coupons from customers, basically doing the exact opposite of what they advertised they did.
No bro, me by using honey, am not setting a cookie that would give my comission to somebody. If i know what honey does and want to use it then changing my browser cookies is my business and should be allowed. Honey never lied about what they do it's just people were too stupid and greedy to care how it works. Especially the ones promoting it.
I feel like i have heard before that TOS are often not considered legally binding but I can't say how true this is, what I can say is waivers that say "you can't sue us for any reason" are never legally binding. Waivers need to be specific in what you're waiving
4:15 THIS, a lot of people dont realize how many organizations honey was also stealing from, churches commonly use affiliates for charity work... and honey is also stealing from them. honey was stealing from EVERYONE and the people who got hurt the most never involved themselves with honey to begin with.
lmao yeah buddy because churches are totally not known for scamming people 🙄 (obviously everything honey did was terrible but the way you're trying to make it a sob story for churches is just kinda weird)
This is by far the funniest shit this year because I watched the animated version of Mark saying he doesn’t trust Honey but Honey is just a jar of honey in the video and now we got the suing of Honey lmao
Regarding the class action lawsuit and terms of service - if YOU sign up for honey, YOU agree to the terms of service, but back to Charlie's Grandma example - Grandma DIDN'T sign up for honey, so she DIDN'T agree to the terms of service and therefore SHE can sue - I think that's the angle Legal Eagle is going with.
That clause you read about no class action lawsuit applies to honey users. The people in this lawsuit are not honey users, so it doesn't matter anyway.
@jeremydale4548 but it doesn't. Forced arbitration clauses are often very hard to fight. The person LegalEagle is working with on this case has a channel called "AttorneyTom". His most recent video uses the clip from this exact video detailing why it's not actually correct.
Even if its in the terms of service of honey that you can't levy a class action lawsuit against them it won't matter. I imagine that legal eagle never agreed to Honey's terms of service and many of the people being screwed over also wouldn't have
Exactly how that works. It isn't the users (who agreed to the ToS) who are suing. It is other businesses suing for interference. Even if someone did agree to the ToS, that only covers them for the USE of the software. It doesn't cover them from being sued for losses outside of the use of the software. For example, if I lent you a car and made you sign a ToS that limits you from suing me in a class action from any damages from use of my car, and then my car leaked oil all over your property, you couldn't sue me in a class action. If you signed my services, and then I stole your car that you own to rent to someone else, I wouldn't be protected by my ToS. ToS only apply in a limited capacity; when you're using the product or engaged with the service. It doesn't apply in cases where you aren't using the product/service and are damaged.
seriously people need to stop thinking ToS actually means anything. A ToS can say that they have the right to hunt and eat you, that doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
Honestly even if they did, that wouldn't matter anyways since Honey committed a fuck ton of crimes chargeable by law, some of them being actual federal crimes which will invalidate the ToS immediately. It's not like someone can just put in their ToS "By using this software you are willingly agreeing to be unalived by so and so" and then you know, actually unalive that person and get away with it. They're STILL going to be charged for doing so. Honestly they might have a better chance just paying some money back to the creators than spending time writing the nonsensical bs in there
@@SavageGreywolf yes, I completely agree with that. What they put in their Tos will not be upheld in law, I was simply demonstrating that if it were to be, they would still be able to be sued.
Even if a RUclipsr can show that their affiliate link was altered, they still need to prove that they lost money as a result. For a class action lawsuit to succeed, the RUclipsrs need to show tangible, quantifiable financial harm, which is not always easy in affiliate marketing. Proving that a sale was lost due to Honey’s affiliate link changes would require detailed, accurate tracking data. Without clear evidence that the altered link prevented the RUclipsr from receiving commissions they would have earned, the case could fail. Additionally, if RUclipsrs are earning from other affiliate links or if the loss of commissions is relatively minor in the larger scheme, it may not rise to the level of harm needed for a class action.Another challenge is that Honey (or any coupon-finding service) isn't legally obligated to display every possible coupon or the highest-value coupon in all cases. There could be technical limitations or reasons why some coupons aren't shown. For example, some coupons might have expiration dates, or certain discounts might be exclusive to specific customer segments (e.g., email subscribers, first-time buyers). If the coupon-finding tool is functioning as advertised-i.e., it's finding coupons-it's not necessarily misleading if it doesn't show every available coupon or the most valuable one. This is especially true if Honey makes no guarantees about showing all coupons.
This sounds like "theft by conversion" as well, which is common in car renting, where essentially they are obtaining the funds/thing "legally" but through illegitimate transactions outside the original agreement (where the agreement would be the kickback from a affiliate cookie/link). Which is exactly what the honey thing looks like.
@asdsdasdasd4612 more common with luxury car rentals are where the car isn't returned or, more likely, torn down and shipped out of country. It's not normal theft because there is a contract that you are "given" the car via the rental agreement, but the "by conversion" part is where you break the... Giving it back part. It's actually a really big deal because insurance already doesn't want to cover the liability of high dollar luxury cars, so it carries a lot of other legal consequences and action by insurance companies and the rental company.
In my opinion, it makes sense that if you click to use the Honey app, it'll force an affiliate. If you're clicking an affiliate link, you're likely already getting a deal that wouldn't combo with other deals (that's how most work)
Regardless of whether or not the TOS statement waiving the right to a class action lawsuit is legally binding, anyone who did not use honey and did not partner with them can still sue them as they did not use the product and did not agree to the TOS. So really its irrelevant.
think of who uses honey, not exactly the type to get a coupon, then go find a use for it in other words, they want to have to coupon because people are more likely to buy something if it's cheaper, if they find the coupon first, they're more likely to buy something from your shop/buy more but if you're using honey, you're already at checkout, there's a chance your shopping is done, so less discount is beneficial for the merchant
@tacticallemon7518 Ahh, I was looking at this in the wrong order. There are coupons that businesses don't want Honey users, specifically, to use. Ya know what...? I'm not even mad at that. At least, I wouldn't be if Honey weren't wire frauds
they should have a pretty easy lawsuit lol like ' we will do illegal shit and you cant sue us just because we said so in our terms of service . ' like that shit is not gonna go well in court .
@@charliethechunkygamer1257No the difference is that Honey set an expectation that people with affiliate links are going to get a certain commission. I don't believe it was explicitly stated (even in any terms of services) that affiliate links are going to Honey.
@@mr.microwave9134 the point of my comment was that you cant legally have in your terms of service that you cant have lawsuits against you , soo them committing cookie fraud and then saying you" cant sue us" is what i was talking about . hope this helps .
@@mr.microwave9134 The fact that Legal Eagle is going after this is evidence enough: If there wasn't a case, he wouldn't be on it. This is one of the biggest and most blatant examples of fraud and racketeering in our time. Only one of, sadly. Hopefully, this becomes one of the nails in Paypals coffin, can't wait to see them shut down or forced to be sold.
@@charliethechunkygamer1257 Yes and my comment was also clarifying that the "can't sue us" because it was in the terms of service would fail in court. I'm not sure if that was your original statement but if so I would agree :)
0:39 you are so correct. This whole thing is so foul. I am so glad to see you guys are coming together rising up and taking action because like mega lag said it’s gotta be upwards in the millions that should’ve been paid out to all of you and anyone else doing affiliate links
It looks like part two is going to be about Honey extorting small businesses into using Honey or else they would give people uber-coupons that werent meant for the normal customer, driving their business into the dust.
thats what i suspected part 2 was going to be about when he hinted to it in the video. i have seen several places talking about it and nobody believing them saying "just dont allow coupons on your site" as if that helps the problem any. honey really is trying to be public enemy #1 with all of this and it looks like they are about to be here really soon.
You know honey doesn’t create the coupons right? Any small business could easily just cancel coupons if they’re being leaked to the masses. But even if so, how would honey get these top secret coupons that are used privately between vendors? Honey would have to do a lot of leg work finding someone to leak those small business’ vendor/private coupons, it doesn’t seem realistic. They’d have to research who might hold those private coupons, and then convince them to leak them, and then have some way to do it over and over once the small business cancels it. And that’s even assuming that the small companies that might give out huge discounts to partners sell goods the general consumer would even want. Otherwise, even having those high discounts does nothing because there wouldn’t be enough sales using them to harm the company. At most honey could “search” for the highest coupon and actually give it to people, like it claims it would. But companies can cancel them anytime, or just pretend they’re out of stock until the coupon expires. I don’t know what they’ve done that would top the sheer scope and effect of them stealing affiliate commissions. Maybe it’s meant to be worse legally, but morally they’re pretty much at the top save for physically harming people. An internet-wide scam is hard to top, and maybe it was just hype for the next parts. But we’ll see
@@GG4F-tf8ex 1. Create a 50% off coupon code intended for employees 2. Employees use that coupon code on a machine also with honey installed. 3. Honey slurps the coupon code (I'm extremely sure they can _always_ see what coupon code works) 4. Honey then adds the coupon to their database without user knowledge They already have the ability to read the website you're on to see of their coupons work, from a technical perspective, it's not difficult to also read the page while the user enters their own coupon
@@GG4F-tf8ex Thinking about what was said during the clips at the end of the initial video - it's likely that Honey was permitting forged coupons in as well. And then encouraging those who tried (and failed) to use said coupons to complain to the vendor, rather than Honey themselves. I mean, if you think about it, who would you rather trust? The people trying to "save you money" or the people who are trying to make a sale? Your instincts are going to go with the people trying to save you money the majority of the time. It's insidious. It's vile. It should be illegal if it isn't already.
@@GG4F-tf8ex It's an extension. Anyone who ever punched in a code while shopping, while having the extension? Honey now has that code and can parse it across the entire web. It's no different from an installed application on a smartphone having access to your photos or contacts list - unless the coupon code was set up in such a way to only be redeemable once ever (even big businesses generally don't do this, let alone small ones), it'd be fair game to be stolen.
10:50 I also have to assume a large amount of influencers this actually effected have never had honey, including and especially legal eagle. It's not a gotcha to all the people who never signed the tos.
All the people in the class action lawsuit who were harmed by affiliate link stealing unless they also signed up for Honey haven't agreed to the terms of service. So even if it was somehow upheld many wouldn't be bound by it. I don't know if it is illegal to lie but Honey also damaged users of honey by lying and saying they searched the whole web for the best coupon codes. So I hope there is a second class action lawsuit just for that.
I don’t think it’s illegal for them on the user side, but yeah, they are about to get omega fisted on the creator side. Because of how wide they casted the net, theoretically ALL youtubers, tiktokers, streamers or anyone who uses affiliate cookies across the world can jump in and pound them. While I don’t think Paypal will go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to be a big blow to their company
This lawsuit is for people who did not partner with Honey. When being sponsored by Honey, creators allowed them to poach affiliates so there’s not much that could be done there. But those who didn’t partner with them got fucked over royally.
1:50 I actually have a theory on what part two is going to be about based on the clips MegaLag played at the end of the part one video. He mentions that there were sometimes where honey would work flawlessly without any of the shady shit. None of the affiliate link poaching and the discounts were actually phenomenal, like 30-50% off coupons. All of the clips at the end of the video seemed to be from business owners who were also being screwed over by Honey. There was one thing one of the people in the clips mentions. People contacting their support asking about a 60% off discount that wasnt working. It was what he said that made me think this. He said, "That is not your discount... how did you get that?" Most of us only experience the world of Business to Consumer transactions (BtC), however, there is also Business to Business transactions (BtB). An example of a BtB transaction can be in the form of say a retail store buying products from a manufacturer to then sell to consumers. There is the Manufacturing Business and the Retail Business. These businesses have a shared interest in working together because they form a chain where the retail business makes money from selling the products that it buys from the manufacturer. Often, businesses like these will strike "deals" with each other. The manufacturer might give the retail business a private discount to be used between their BtB transactions only in exchange that retail business will stock and try to sell more of the manufacturers products specifically than other ones. These discounts can get quite large. in the range of 30-60% like mentioned at the end of MegaLag's video. Stuff like this happens all the time between businesses. Retailers and Manufacturers is just one example. What I think, Honey somehow managed to get access to these discounts that are typically only shared between business and started sharing them with their users. and because of their affiliate poaching, Honey was making money off of these sales while losing money for the "manufacturers" As well as any other businesses Honey could have gotten similar discounts from.
The way you’re describing honey makes it sound like a back door program a hacker would use to access all your computer files without you knowing about it.
“You’re gonna Pay, Pal” - Legal Eagle, probably
Ba dum tss 🥁
"You've raided the legends in the shadow"
If you don't have the money, then you can't have the Honey.
"this town ain't big enough for the 2 of us" ahh bot
@@joehoardical legal eagle also: Honey, I'm home!
"In fact it's not allegedly, it's a fact... in my opinion. "
-Charlie masterfully avoiding a lawsuit 😂
i thought that as well lol
It's a simple spell, but quite unbreakable
@urbainleverrier1 "then I'll take it off your corpse" -squidward
Charlie himself could try to join in the muticlass lawsuit because he used honey and most likely gotten money taken away from him …. Nothing they could do
@@OVOJacob3thats how i know youre broke yourself. People get rich because they dont share and look out for every bit they can get.
"you cant sue us, that's illegal" says the company doing illegal shit
They called "nuh uhn"😂😂😂
@@funniebunnie0427
“takes one to know one” and they’re rubber but their opponents are glue
>Says the company skimming bank credentials and having such shit security they are just hemorrhaging bank accounts and personal information to the dark web every minute
@@CantTellYou yooo its CantTellYou
Mfs putting "you can't sue us" in the tos, as they do sue worthy things
I remember hearing that a group I liked lost a sponsorship because literally nobody used their affiliate link
I really wonder if honey was the direct reason they lost it, they have a few hundred thousand subscribers so zero people seems insane.
was that sleep deprived by any chance?
@ yeah.
@@artisanmain yeah I thought that too when they joked about it. but at the same time i personally am not buying manscaped and I’m not sure if i know many people that would
@@groundcretinI mean I would but that’s cause I have a gf who is very particular about my hair there
@@RageUnchained just buy the olov or olev shaver kit it's way cheaper
they really need to look into pie is well, they are aggressively marketing that as being one of the creators of honey. What's odd is i thought RUclips was against ad blockers yet this pie marketing is all over the site.
Holy shit it’s bjm. Grew up on ur vids man, great stuff :)
hi bijuu
idk why people would install pie when one of the creators come from a well known scam. always do your research.
What better way to get people to flock to Pie, than for YT to be vehemently "against" ad blockers?
I wouldn't be surprised if YT was getting a nice big slice of Pie's revenue.
It would be another "perfect" scam.
Step 1: Claim to be against ad blockers, which drives your ad inundated users to seek out any ad blocker, that's available.
Step 2: Endorse an ad blocker, on your site, causing people to flock to it.
Step 3: Sit back and rake in all of that "user money" that they didn't want to give you, from watching your ads.
Either way, YT gets your money.
What the hell are you doin here Mike?
I work for a company that makes money from affiliate commissions, and now I'm wondering how much money we lost to Honey even never having anything to do with them.
Sorry to hear that honey
Request they join in the lawsuit. Or hire some goons to get their money back mafia style.
GOON
I don't have anything like that and I feel like I lost money to honey
@@joeshmoe8827 GOONING!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?1
Honey is now promoting ‘ pie ‘ an adblocker which seems fairly similar to honey. Just wanted to throw it out there
It seems fairly similar because it has the same creator lol - hit their 'about us' page.
Not owned by Paypal, yet. Same creator of Honey, but yes, a scam.
I was wondering why that was being so aggressively pushed- thank god I have an adblocker that blocks the "adblocker"
@@michaelmoorrees3585 ah my bad , I saw the pie : by honey and just kinda assumed it was through paypal
I knew those had to be related lol thanks
Gotta love how that "you can't sue us" part is in all caps. So professional.
yes it is
Wow, Penguizn is really desperate for views. How many times will he leech off MegaLag for views???
The "Honey" was high fructose corn syrup all along
I shouldn't be laughing this hard
That’s a good one!
Poetic
is corn syrup that deadly?
@@scrapeddiamonds5776 it's not that good for you, especially high fructose corn syrup
You failed to mention the opportunity cost lost for creators. A youtuber might have lost future work with a sponsorship because that sponsorship decided not to sponsor them again due to numbers not performing as well as they would've liked. When in reality, honey could've just been taking those customers.
depends if the new sponsors would realize that honey was doing this and they could only look at previous sponsorships?
Lil bro was born in 2025. you missed peak Fortnite☝️☝️☝️
It's EVERYONE who sells online!
@@DamianQualshythat brings in question, if u are a small time creator and this if ur first or maybe 2nd or 3rd sponsorship, so if other sponsors are only looking at how many people previously clicked before. Then wouldn’t honey be harming way more people if that’s the case?
@freewind6368 definitely, yeah, but I don't know how sponsorships work so can't be absolutely sure
Im going to put "You legally have to pay me $1000 right now, and you cant sue me ever" into my software's terms of service
You should add “you must ’you must pay every time you agree to the site ToS” then mak em them agree to the ToS every time they join as well as make them agree to you being able to automatically transfer money to your wallet.
@Jefferino1093yeah say that it’s processing costs. Ez
Thats called licencing.
If you buy something like enterprise licence for Visual Studio etc thats exactly how it works.
But youre also not paying for the app youre paying for the microsoft contact number that picks up the phone.
That sounds like Adobe
Follow the Disneyfold Path
10:43 Disney literally did that. A guy’s partner died from an allergic reaction due to Disneys neglect and they wanted to sue, but Disney says if you have Disney+ you legally can’t sue Disney for anything. RIDICULOUS.
I think he actually made a video on this when it happened. It’s so crazy
Correction... they HAD disney + like a year or 2 before they made their trip so it wasn't even active. disney was trying ot argue that they were still bound to the t&c even after they terminated their + service.
@@jbone665 Which frankly should slap them with an automatic double the amount they're asking for.
WHICH ISN'T EVEN MUCH TO BEGIN WITH FOR DISNEY. Disney is actually wasting more money trying to fight this than it would cost to just pay the person.
The case he's referring to is a wrongful death case being brought before Disney for a woman who died from a severe allergic reaction at a Disney resort after repeatedly telling staff she was allergic and to not add the ingredient to her meal and they did anyway. Disney's lawyers tried to claim that the lawsuit was invalid because the family had Disney+, where there's Terms and Conditions that all disputes are to be settled by arbitration. The Court however, threw that out because no reasonable person would assume signing up for Disney+ means Disney has immunity for getting them killed.
Thats last part is not true, Disney retracked their request for arbitration after major public backlash, but this question was never actually settled in court.
That's the one ^
I know Disney being evil isn’t new, but man that’s evil.
@janinaschmitt5562 Really, I thought I heard it'd been thrown out. Either way Disney's legal team shoulda known better.
Almost all of this is wrong one way or the other. LegalEagle himself explains on a video.
TL;DW: Disney wanted to force arbitration (which is usually fast and involves settling for money) instead of a legal battle, because legal action should have been taken against the restaurant instead. Disney doesn't own or even manage anything about the restaurant themselves, they just lease the land and feature them on their webpage.
The guy tried to involve Disney by using the fact that the restaurant's allergen-free claims featured in Disney's webpage. Which is why Disney tried to use the terms of a digital service like Disney+ to force arbitration instead.
So it wasn't as frivolous as it seems, people just thought it was because Disney are kind of an evil megacorp.
Barry B. Benson after learning about the apiculture industry:
"guys, help legal eagle win the lawsuit against honey and PayPal or you're FIRED!"
How oddly specific 😭
wait wrong Benson 😂
"They are committing fraud and robbing the damn bees , what next taxing milk from cows ? "- Seinfeld probably
You know who else is committing wire fraud?
The TOS doesn't even matter because Honey steals the affiliate commission regardless of whether the affiliate has done any business with Honey or not. Creators who never even heard of Honey are affected; they never agreed to any Honey TOS. It may be more difficult for a consumer who installed the extension to file a suit, but it's fair game for creators/affiliates.
For the part of affiliate stealing, those who make money via providing affiliate links can go legally.
End consumers also got a case here, since honey allegedly partnered with sellers and prevented consumer from getting best discount coupon.
I don't know how many law suits are incoming. Brace yourself, payapal.
yeah, but anyone who used the service can't sue for false advertising in a class action lawsuit
Honey will use it to try and dismiss anyone in the lawsuit that has used Honey.
Yea, the class isn't comprised of individuals using the ToS, they're not the users bringing suit, they never signed the ToS, so what might be in it is entirely pointless.
Nothing will come out of this… always a loophole for titans like this.
0:12 "allegedly, except its not alleged, its factually a scam! **in my opinion** "
Everyone knows Legal Eagle but shoutout to Attorney Tom & America's Attorney. Both are also on the suit and have made awesome content on here for many years.
America's Attorney is a sleeper channel, bro has 30k subs but has made really well done and informative videos for a hot min. Attorney Tom is something special, Bros a bit odd but something so down to earth and real about his content.
i
@@JourneysADRIFT I found America's Attorney through the Attorney Reacts channel, which was started by Attorney Tom. Good stuff.
Also the one with the cats, I forgot his name but he's very RUclipsrs - knowledgeable too, and he seems like a very sweet person.
@@JourneysADRIFT fr. Found out about America's Attorney way back when Coffeezilla released the Cryptozoo investigation series. Underrated, but absolutely goated. Took me by surprise when he, Legal Eagle, and Attorney Tom decided to team-up against Honey, and if I'm not mistaken, AA was the one who announced first. 2025 starting off strong.
at around 4:00 , its even funnier actually. If you manually put in a better coupon code for like dominos or subway, theres a chance that they'd overwrite your better coupon with the worse deal.
oh wow that’s great! /s
The Domino coupons made it dead obvious from the start that honey was garbage. So many of us had been using the 25% coupon for a decade
I had both Honey and Swagbucks, Swagbucks usually had a coupon that worked for Pizza, Honey NEVER did. But Honey offered "Activate me and get 8%-15% back as Honey Gold." - So I'd do that. My coupon still worked as intended BUT the Honey gold? Never came.
I had honey for like 4 years, never got above 200 gold. No matter what I did or clicked, no matter what they suggested. I eventually just ignored Honey - not sure why I ever kept it honestly lol. Meanwhile every cashback I've had work was Swagbucks. And I'm sure if I looked I'd find out they're just as bad or something, but still....
There's still one thing I don't understand. When Charlie says even if Honey doesn't find a coupon it sends a popup to get the last click and puts in their affiliate link. If there's no discount, how would they get money from the purchase?
Well that id the scam part.. They overwrite the affiliate cookie with their own
That is how they get the money by doing nothing.
This is literally the entire Bee Movie plot
@RandomName641-z4c that's not funny, that's sad.
“They make the honey, and we make the money.”
@TravisDoesStuffreally dude
@TravisDoesStuff really? no way? almost like its a bot account
@TravisDoesStuff responding to it is just doing what they want you to do
MegaLag's subs have BLOWN UP with this video!
I've been following his stuff since he had fewer than 10k subs when he was doing airtags that he was tracking through packages he was sending to North Korea and stuff, but his content has only been getting better and better of the last couple of years.
Can't wait to see part 2 and 3 of his video series.
He deserves every single one, I'd never heard if him before the Honey exposé but his investigation made me a new fan.
holy shit, that's the same guy?
8:09
Did they know? - Certainly yes
Will they admit to that? - No
Will they get punished? - Certainly no
and the cycle will continue. honey will go down and another will take it's place and finding work arounds to make it near impossible to detect the scummy shit they do
I'm convinced they weighed the risk vs benefits of purchasing a scam company for $4 billion and knew they could most likely walk away with well over that amount in profits when it was eventually exposed. I bet they had a great time congratulating each other over such an ingenious business move...
@@yomommashaus they made sure to use the documentation as paper plates for the employee pizza party
Half their customer base will not use honey because of these things coming to light they’re gonna lose a lot of money
"At best" they will throw someone from the Honey under the bus and walk away whistling. Hopefully not literally.
One point to note: the Terms of Service DO NOT MATTER for this lawsuit! The ToS is between the Honey user and PayPal. Your grandmother (or Wendover Productions) DID NOT "SIGN" that ToS. Your grandmother had a contract with Tupperware, NOT PayPal or the Honey user. (I've seen an online lawyer get this wrong twice, and it's driving me crazy 🤪.)
I don't trust the words of someone who doesn't know that terms of service like that aren't legally binding
also this goes much deeper. honey isn't just stealing from "creators" and "blogs", they're also stealing from free platforms like youtube themselves. if you buy something from an ad on youtube, cookies are saved recognizing youtube as the referrer. then same story, when you use honey last click, they override it.
this one's gonna be a honey vs the world type shi
@@femurbomb Binding or not, the point is it doesn't matter.
Most of this information is irrelevant anyway since all of the clauses like this in a "ToS" aren't actionable. Any legal contract is still subject to written laws and cannot subvert your legal rights.
Why did Sam catch a stray there?
I want all the puns in the world during this trial if it goes to court.. “ain’t so sweet now, eh buster”
Got yourself into a sticky situation
Kiss your honey goodbye.
Calls itself Honey cause it loves sticking it to everyone.
"You honey trapped your fraud victims now we honey trap YOU !"
This will bee an intersting lawsuit, they are goona pay, pal.
Adding the "you can't sue us" is the digital equivalent of rock trucks that claim they're "NOT responsible for broken windshields!".
Your load isn't secured properly and is causing paint chips, flat tires, and broken glass. Good luck with that bumper sticker defense.
It doesn't matter what their TOS says when the majority of impacted parties never agreed to it. An affiliate with no connection to Honey can still have their commission stolen by Honey without their knowledge. Without knowledge of Honey, they wouldn't have agreed to the TOS and therefore not be bound by it.
Moreover, as cookie stuffing is an illegal activity (its definitely a form of fraud) TOS does not cover them. All the language covering their arbitration clause instantly becomes null and void (as it also states in their TOS).
I am no lawyer and I'm not from the states. But the idea that you can "sign" a "piece of paper" that says 'You can't sue me for doing something illegal' is insane to me.
@@GCOSBenbow i'm also pretty sure TOS doesn't protect you from crimes, though this is American Law we're talking about it's pretty stupid
Exactly. The TOS applies to people who use the browser extension only and only with respect to their use of the extension.
@@malcomchase9777TOS generally isn't a protection from blatantly illegal activities, it's more a cover for things that aren't EXPLICITLY illegal but may result in a lawsuit from an affected party/parties. Now that doesn't justify it in my eyes, not at all, but there is a distinction. With that being said TOS wouldn't necessarily protect a company in court either, if whatever it is they're doing is deemed egregious enough to not be reasonably expected to be upheld by their customers. It acts more as a deterrent for average people who will go "well they said it in their terms and conditions, so I can't possibly sue them", even if that isn't necessarily true.
The fact that one of the resident RUclips lawyers is on the case makes this so much better.
fr
Not one, multiple. Legal Eagle is the biggest but Attorney Tom and America's Attorney are also on the lawsuit and they both make awesome content.
There’s already things dying in 2025 like:
Nick Eh 30
Honey
@@ThisGuyDannyyyespecially Nick eh 30 he is MAD forgettable
@@kingkeshi1140 Even if a RUclipsr can show that their affiliate link was altered, they still need to prove that they lost money as a result. For a class action lawsuit to succeed, the RUclipsrs need to show tangible, quantifiable financial harm, which is not always easy in affiliate marketing. Proving that a sale was lost due to Honey’s affiliate link changes would require detailed, accurate tracking data. Without clear evidence that the altered link prevented the RUclipsr from receiving commissions they would have earned, the case could fail. Additionally, if RUclipsrs are earning from other affiliate links or if the loss of commissions is relatively minor in the larger scheme, it may not rise to the level of harm needed for a class action.Another challenge is that Honey (or any coupon-finding service) isn't legally obligated to display every possible coupon or the highest-value coupon in all cases. There could be technical limitations or reasons why some coupons aren't shown. For example, some coupons might have expiration dates, or certain discounts might be exclusive to specific customer segments (e.g., email subscribers, first-time buyers). If the coupon-finding tool is functioning as advertised-i.e., it's finding coupons-it's not necessarily misleading if it doesn't show every available coupon or the most valuable one. This is especially true if Honey makes no guarantees about showing all coupons.
10:00 This may protect Honey against lawsuits from creators who had an agreement with them, but not ones who didn't. The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of creators who had nothing to do with Honey.
Fraud vitiates all. Their TOS means nothing if fraudulent behavior is involved.
@@Sam_Saraguy Ideally, yes, but the courts may uphold the forced arbitration clauses, even where fraud is alleged. i.e. The fraud is still only an allegation/dispute, and the creators who signed agreements with Honey accepted arbitration as the venue for determining whether fraud occurred at all. So they'd still have to overcome the hurdle of proving fraud at arbitration first, and that would be on an individual basis.
Creators who had an agreement with Honey weren't end users, so I don't think the TOS would matter here. There might be something in the sponsorship contracts, but only the creators would know that. It really only affects end users who might sue honey after using it.
@@madaemon it wont. You cannot put anything in your TOS like this and expect it it be upheld. "You cannot sue us if you use our product" will never fly.
Seems like leagle eagle was fairly confident that just about anyone affected by honey affiliate links could join the lawsuit (outside of consumers), so I assume creators have a strong case too.
The advertising merchants should be angry too. The cookie swapping made it look like successful advertising wasn't working.
10:28 Even if the class action clause in the Honey terms of service were legally binding, that would only apply to the actual users who signed up for it. People who neither used nor promoted it who lost commissions are entitled to sue the pants off those leaches. As far as those who had actual promotion deals with Honey, that’s another question.
That's why there's a Creator lawsuit, and not a honey user lawsuit
@ exactly.
Yeah cause I definitely got RUclipsr coupons from Honey so they definitely weren't getting that commission
yeah I never used or singed up for honey so that TOS doesnt mean shit if I were to file a class action
would this not be considered unconscionable?
Like at this point anyone can just make whatever malicious program. Drop a lorem ipsum ass TOS like any other, and sneak in the end there "oh btw by clicking a button you can't sue me"
The thing is, Legal Eagle's class action isn't for users of Honey. It's for RUclipsrs who have had their affiliate codes poached by Honey's shady cookie replacement. The sponsorship contract with these RUclipsrs has nothing to do with Honey's ToS. Now, whether there's an arbitration clause in the sponsorship contract is another matter, but i would assume LE has done his research on that.
Users have absolutely nothing to claim against them
@ILoveTinfoilHats Fraud, allegedly. But that's a separate matter and probably covered under their arbitration clause.
@@ILoveTinfoilHats yes they do, they could argue that honey prevented them from supporting the creator, which was part of the reason for a purchase
@@perciusmandate except for that fact that it wasn't fraud and was exactly what was advertised? The whole suit isn't because they were lying, it's because creators didn't have to agree for it to affect them directly.
@ILoveTinfoilHats That's exactly what I said in my original post. Thank you for agreeing with me. Have a nice day.
9:32 " let's see " * proceeds to break the sound barrier with only his finger tips in the search for information *
God I wish I could type as fast as he
How many wpm is that
@Prantkun Yes
Keyboard turned into an ar15 😭
Clip farming
-By accepting our terms, you agree to not sue us
-Well, I don't accept them
-Well, shlt
Getting sued by legal eagle himself has got to be the most spine chilling thing ever lmao
Bro the ovhoe bot called you broke you gotta fight em
If he has to be a RUclipsr to make money . I dont think he is that successful
@@OVOJacob3 elaborate more...that kinda comment I laugh at on youtube and never take seriously haha
@@buttertoof Ovhoe fans have to live with the fact that their GOAT is a pedo, let them get some peace, they’re already the joke of the internet 😂
It's up there with waking up in the middle of the night because you hear a noise at the front door, so you go to check and hear a very quiet "Nothing on 2... Little click on 3. Back to 1. Feels set... Maybe release a little tension? Oh! Big click out of 1 and we're in!"
Terms of service that are so long they become unrealistically read able need to be outlawed. It should also be illegal then to wave any rights away.
Also I think they are not legally binding.
@@tylerhartley5031 no one is crying here buddy, you ain't cool nor better for saying such simple thing to someone who is explaining like the adult you are not.
Ive seen judges literally say "dude, your terms of service is 47 pages long. No one is reading that." And then proceed to say that due to the extreme length of the document, it was harmful to consumers and couldnt be made legally binding
Agree
They 100% do that so you won’t read them(or can’t) so they can put some shady shit in it
Honey even a bear wouldn’t touch
lmao this made me shiggle
lmao
lmao😭😭
lol
Bear in Nepali language is prostitute
I once wrote a TOS for a website.
I put in that by agreeing to the TOS you also agree that in the event you find a Genie lamp, I get one of the wishes.
Despite like 10,000 people agreeing I never got any genie wishes... TOS are not legally binding, the penalty for breaking them is not getting to use the service anymore. That is all unless you break actual laws.
11:42 so they want arbitration when they do something wrong but want a law suit when someone bothers them. Absolute child behavior.
They took inspiration from Nintendo.
its worse, arbitration with guy they choose as arbiter.
literally the “I have an unbreakable shield and super mega sword that can’t be blocked”
@@lilharm "I have like, an invincible shield that can block any attack, and, like, a super sweet sword that does infinity + 2 damage" -Not Eric Cartman
Child behaviour? This is just evil shit
9/10 any product that spams you with ads is trying to scam you.
This is good advice.
Modern marketing itself is the scam .
Can I interest you in some European royal land you can totally own????
Says a lot about youtube
Prove it pal
The BIG one in my head rent-free, is them saying theyre using a smaller coupon, but then using a larger one, and then scalping the rest for themselves OUTRIGHT; straight out of our pockets, and THEN stealing commission.
I thought this was going to be the "phase 2" in the original video
it's wild how much thought they put into making sure to squeeze as much scam outta honey from every angle as possible
just because you sign a contract saying that they are allowed to do illegal activity doesnt mean they are allowed to. You cant use a contract to get around the law, the terms of service is going to get thrown out.
It is definitely important to note that this also inflates honey's affiliate marketing performance. This is very likely also illegal.
Can’t wait to claim my 4 cents from this lawsuit
Fr
So you are part of the problem - not caring if ppl get shafted. Might wanna re-evaluate your life
@@seriously58cringe take
@@seriously58you caring what happens to billionaires. you need to reevaluate your life
@@seriously58 ?
10:41 The people loosing commissions to honey wouldn't even be people who accepted these terms of service, so the fact that they are even here in the terms of service are still not binding to the aspect of the class action lawsuit. This only proves that PayPal-honey knew this was blatantly illegal if not morally wrong and lawsuit worthy.
Exactly my idea
Exactly. I think LegalEagle mentioned that too. A creator who has never even heard of Honey could easily be affected. Let's use MeUndies as an example. Say you're watching a video and the creator advertises MeUndies and provides an affiliate link in their description. So you click your creator's affiliate link and are brought to their site. Honey pops up in the corner and says: "We can't find any coupons for this!". You click to close their pop-up. Clicking the pop-up at all now takes away that content creators affiliate link and replaces it with their own, despite them not ever being involved with Honey. That content creator never agreed to Honey's terms of service, so Honey's ToS do not apply to them at all.
This is honey even Winnie-the-Pooh would reject
9:32 me fake typing when the teacher is walking near me doing my assignment on Microsoft word
LMAO na I couldn't even fake type that quick
@@SpyderUTD it dont matter if you made sense, as long as you can mash buttons like a maniac
I am genuinely amazed that he didn’t make any mistakes either
"It doesn't matter if you live under a rocket ship" didn't expect to hear that today
I want him to say this, it'd surprise everyone expecting the same intro.
@RandomName641-z4c Ironic since you also should be banned
He said it doesn’t matter if you’ve been living under a rock I’m sure even Patrick star has gotten this news by now
who said rocket ship?
He didn't even say that?
The terms of use isn't even useful to them because the people affected by honey aren't the people using honey.
I used the honey to destroy the honey
Even then, I don't even think the class action waiver would work if they were being sued for false advertising (which there is a case for) - again, you can't just say "you can't sue us if we do something illegal :)"
Actually customers who used Honey were scammed as well. Honey took money from companies to actively HIDE coupons from customers, basically doing the exact opposite of what they advertised they did.
Also, what if Legal eagle didn't use honey? Then he isn't affected by the ToS
No bro, me by using honey, am not setting a cookie that would give my comission to somebody. If i know what honey does and want to use it then changing my browser cookies is my business and should be allowed. Honey never lied about what they do it's just people were too stupid and greedy to care how it works. Especially the ones promoting it.
Markiplier knew. They called him crazy but he knew something was up.
I feel like i have heard before that TOS are often not considered legally binding but I can't say how true this is, what I can say is waivers that say "you can't sue us for any reason" are never legally binding. Waivers need to be specific in what you're waiving
4:15 THIS, a lot of people dont realize how many organizations honey was also stealing from, churches commonly use affiliates for charity work... and honey is also stealing from them. honey was stealing from EVERYONE and the people who got hurt the most never involved themselves with honey to begin with.
Churches are literally the only organizations that deserve to be stolen from lmao. Worst possible example
Even non-sponsors? You mean tell me that Honey essentially mass-weaponized unsuspecting users?
lmao yeah buddy because churches are totally not known for scamming people 🙄
(obviously everything honey did was terrible but the way you're trying to make it a sob story for churches is just kinda weird)
@@ellie_hcwtf are you talking about
@@seven_swords never heard of churches taking money for "charity" only to make themselves more rich? are you 5, brainwashed, or living under a rock?
I'm so glad that I had the same thoughts as Markiplier and never used it.
Seriously, if you're unsure about a product, why blindly follow through it without any skepticism? Never made sense to me.
These bots man…
so many bots here
Stop trna get involved cuh
I remember thinking "Scam" when I first saw the ads, then I died on that hill when Mr. Beast did the ads.
“ You better pay up Pal , or I will steal all your honey “ - Legal Eagle , 2025
I'm glad LegalEagle also name dropped Pie. Pie seems just as shady as Honey
DeepHumor can I have your name if I ask nicely
@@NotPliskin I want DeepHumor
Hi
I mean, it's made by the same creator, so I'm not surprised
11:01 listen at 2x speed
Summa lumma dooma lumma
worth it
Eminem: "You dare challenge me...?"
Like I was being contacted by angry aliens
Lol I was already watching on 2x speed 😂 gotta speed through this gargantuan pile of watch later content
This is by far the funniest shit this year because I watched the animated version of Mark saying he doesn’t trust Honey but Honey is just a jar of honey in the video and now we got the suing of Honey lmao
OH NO ITS THE BOILED ONE😱😱😱😱
Imma look that up..
*Insert lethal company spider walking sound effect here*
Finally honey is in trouble
Bro knew before Markiplier
reverse bee movie
@ UTTP died it's time to get a job
@JustaHarmfulguy Woahhh tough guy in the comments
@JustaHarmfulguy I don’t remember this being an answer to a question
Regarding the class action lawsuit and terms of service - if YOU sign up for honey, YOU agree to the terms of service, but back to Charlie's Grandma example - Grandma DIDN'T sign up for honey, so she DIDN'T agree to the terms of service and therefore SHE can sue - I think that's the angle Legal Eagle is going with.
Also fraud because they steal the commission
Nope, the terms of service can't directly contradict advertising claims.
TOS doesnt protect you from fraud otherwise it wouldn't exist
If cookie stuffing has a precedent making it illegal, I don't think they're allowed to put crimes in the ToS
Doesn't matter what the tos says, if it violates your rights, like saying you can't sue them, it's none binding.
"Sometimes that sweet Honey deal is just a *sting* operation in disguise!"
- The art of war guy
Sun zoo
Yeah yeah that guy
@@Barely_EditsYeah yeah that guy chain
Completely off topic but love the display in the back of your set up really looks cool
Thing is , you cannot denny a person´s right to class action lawsuit no matter how many TOS you sign , I believe.
No TOS can deny a lawsuit of any kind. Unless your Disney apparently
Bees turning out to be scammers was not on my 2025 list
It started in 2024
@DJandLFbut the lawsuit is now
@TheLego_Eater yeah but he didn't specify the lawsuit, he said when it was revealed/mentioned
Funny thing is that your comment reminds me of the bee movie and there, its the other way around. The bees are the one who sues 😂
That clause you read about no class action lawsuit applies to honey users. The people in this lawsuit are not honey users, so it doesn't matter anyway.
It shouldn’t matter even if it is honey users. Breaking the law and misleading people should render that clause null and void.
@jeremydale4548 but it doesn't. Forced arbitration clauses are often very hard to fight. The person LegalEagle is working with on this case has a channel called "AttorneyTom". His most recent video uses the clip from this exact video detailing why it's not actually correct.
Honey pt. 2: Sponsored Diddy parties 💀
Even if its in the terms of service of honey that you can't levy a class action lawsuit against them it won't matter. I imagine that legal eagle never agreed to Honey's terms of service and many of the people being screwed over also wouldn't have
Exactly how that works. It isn't the users (who agreed to the ToS) who are suing. It is other businesses suing for interference.
Even if someone did agree to the ToS, that only covers them for the USE of the software. It doesn't cover them from being sued for losses outside of the use of the software.
For example, if I lent you a car and made you sign a ToS that limits you from suing me in a class action from any damages from use of my car, and then my car leaked oil all over your property, you couldn't sue me in a class action. If you signed my services, and then I stole your car that you own to rent to someone else, I wouldn't be protected by my ToS.
ToS only apply in a limited capacity; when you're using the product or engaged with the service. It doesn't apply in cases where you aren't using the product/service and are damaged.
Also still many people can give smaller suits if denied , and the court could tell them to just make it a class action lawsuit anyhow.
seriously people need to stop thinking ToS actually means anything. A ToS can say that they have the right to hunt and eat you, that doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
Honestly even if they did, that wouldn't matter anyways since Honey committed a fuck ton of crimes chargeable by law, some of them being actual federal crimes which will invalidate the ToS immediately. It's not like someone can just put in their ToS "By using this software you are willingly agreeing to be unalived by so and so" and then you know, actually unalive that person and get away with it. They're STILL going to be charged for doing so.
Honestly they might have a better chance just paying some money back to the creators than spending time writing the nonsensical bs in there
@@SavageGreywolf yes, I completely agree with that. What they put in their Tos will not be upheld in law, I was simply demonstrating that if it were to be, they would still be able to be sued.
Who knew we would get an uno reverse bee movie plot for 2025?
We're suing the bees for all you got!
Truly one of the plot twists of all time.
Even if a RUclipsr can show that their affiliate link was altered, they still need to prove that they lost money as a result. For a class action lawsuit to succeed, the RUclipsrs need to show tangible, quantifiable financial harm, which is not always easy in affiliate marketing. Proving that a sale was lost due to Honey’s affiliate link changes would require detailed, accurate tracking data. Without clear evidence that the altered link prevented the RUclipsr from receiving commissions they would have earned, the case could fail. Additionally, if RUclipsrs are earning from other affiliate links or if the loss of commissions is relatively minor in the larger scheme, it may not rise to the level of harm needed for a class action.Another challenge is that Honey (or any coupon-finding service) isn't legally obligated to display every possible coupon or the highest-value coupon in all cases. There could be technical limitations or reasons why some coupons aren't shown. For example, some coupons might have expiration dates, or certain discounts might be exclusive to specific customer segments (e.g., email subscribers, first-time buyers). If the coupon-finding tool is functioning as advertised-i.e., it's finding coupons-it's not necessarily misleading if it doesn't show every available coupon or the most valuable one. This is especially true if Honey makes no guarantees about showing all coupons.
at 1:00 overdosing on stupid juice he'd overdose on goof juice
"Factually a scam, in my opinion."
I thought that was a bit of a goofy statement. Anyhow, I love how the room looks now. Good stuff
This sounds like "theft by conversion" as well, which is common in car renting, where essentially they are obtaining the funds/thing "legally" but through illegitimate transactions outside the original agreement (where the agreement would be the kickback from a affiliate cookie/link). Which is exactly what the honey thing looks like.
What is the car rental example
@asdsdasdasd4612 more common with luxury car rentals are where the car isn't returned or, more likely, torn down and shipped out of country. It's not normal theft because there is a contract that you are "given" the car via the rental agreement, but the "by conversion" part is where you break the... Giving it back part. It's actually a really big deal because insurance already doesn't want to cover the liability of high dollar luxury cars, so it carries a lot of other legal consequences and action by insurance companies and the rental company.
Seems like an odd comparison
conversion is one of the formal allegations in the lawsuit
11:16 "i'm sure the jury would side with you guys" of course 😂😂
“Cookie Stuffing.”
Me: “Mmm Cookies…”
Bro is not Santa
Big back moment
But ngl tho, stuffed cookies with chocolate/vanilla cream would be delicious
What is with yt and npc comments
In my opinion, it makes sense that if you click to use the Honey app, it'll force an affiliate.
If you're clicking an affiliate link, you're likely already getting a deal that wouldn't combo with other deals (that's how most work)
I watched Mark's liars bar video yesterday and it's description, didn't know he always hated it, didn't think Charlie would mention it
Regardless of whether or not the TOS statement waiving the right to a class action lawsuit is legally binding, anyone who did not use honey and did not partner with them can still sue them as they did not use the product and did not agree to the TOS. So really its irrelevant.
That’s like robbing a bank with a sign saying “You can’t arrest me” and expect the cops to go home
As a business, why do coupons exist that you don't want consumers to use? If you don't want people using the 50% off, don't enable it
think of who uses honey, not exactly the type to get a coupon, then go find a use for it
in other words, they want to have to coupon because people are more likely to buy something if it's cheaper, if they find the coupon first, they're more likely to buy something from your shop/buy more but if you're using honey, you're already at checkout, there's a chance your shopping is done, so less discount is beneficial for the merchant
@tacticallemon7518 Ahh, I was looking at this in the wrong order. There are coupons that businesses don't want Honey users, specifically, to use.
Ya know what...? I'm not even mad at that. At least, I wouldn't be if Honey weren't wire frauds
Let's just hope the lawyers working with honey get paid and don't have to deal with the commissions going to honey.
they should have a pretty easy lawsuit lol like ' we will do illegal shit and you cant sue us just because we said so in our terms of service . ' like that shit is not gonna go well in court .
@@charliethechunkygamer1257No the difference is that Honey set an expectation that people with affiliate links are going to get a certain commission. I don't believe it was explicitly stated (even in any terms of services) that affiliate links are going to Honey.
@@mr.microwave9134 the point of my comment was that you cant legally have in your terms of service that you cant have lawsuits against you , soo them committing cookie fraud and then saying you" cant sue us" is what i was talking about . hope this helps .
@@mr.microwave9134 The fact that Legal Eagle is going after this is evidence enough: If there wasn't a case, he wouldn't be on it. This is one of the biggest and most blatant examples of fraud and racketeering in our time. Only one of, sadly. Hopefully, this becomes one of the nails in Paypals coffin, can't wait to see them shut down or forced to be sold.
@@charliethechunkygamer1257 Yes and my comment was also clarifying that the "can't sue us" because it was in the terms of service would fail in court. I'm not sure if that was your original statement but if so I would agree :)
0:39 you are so correct. This whole thing is so foul. I am so glad to see you guys are coming together rising up and taking action because like mega lag said it’s gotta be upwards in the millions that should’ve been paid out to all of you and anyone else doing affiliate links
Dead Internet Theory ahh account 💀💀💀. AI has now made it onto RUclips boys
fowl!!
fowl
@@NylanderHas5StarDragonBallsyeah fr I swear like 75% of these comments are literally just bots
@@Chris-ue7zrfowl chain
It looks like part two is going to be about Honey extorting small businesses into using Honey or else they would give people uber-coupons that werent meant for the normal customer, driving their business into the dust.
thats what i suspected part 2 was going to be about when he hinted to it in the video. i have seen several places talking about it and nobody believing them saying "just dont allow coupons on your site" as if that helps the problem any. honey really is trying to be public enemy #1 with all of this and it looks like they are about to be here really soon.
You know honey doesn’t create the coupons right? Any small business could easily just cancel coupons if they’re being leaked to the masses. But even if so, how would honey get these top secret coupons that are used privately between vendors? Honey would have to do a lot of leg work finding someone to leak those small business’ vendor/private coupons, it doesn’t seem realistic. They’d have to research who might hold those private coupons, and then convince them to leak them, and then have some way to do it over and over once the small business cancels it. And that’s even assuming that the small companies that might give out huge discounts to partners sell goods the general consumer would even want. Otherwise, even having those high discounts does nothing because there wouldn’t be enough sales using them to harm the company. At most honey could “search” for the highest coupon and actually give it to people, like it claims it would. But companies can cancel them anytime, or just pretend they’re out of stock until the coupon expires.
I don’t know what they’ve done that would top the sheer scope and effect of them stealing affiliate commissions. Maybe it’s meant to be worse legally, but morally they’re pretty much at the top save for physically harming people. An internet-wide scam is hard to top, and maybe it was just hype for the next parts. But we’ll see
@@GG4F-tf8ex
1. Create a 50% off coupon code intended for employees
2. Employees use that coupon code on a machine also with honey installed.
3. Honey slurps the coupon code (I'm extremely sure they can _always_ see what coupon code works)
4. Honey then adds the coupon to their database without user knowledge
They already have the ability to read the website you're on to see of their coupons work, from a technical perspective, it's not difficult to also read the page while the user enters their own coupon
@@GG4F-tf8ex Thinking about what was said during the clips at the end of the initial video - it's likely that Honey was permitting forged coupons in as well. And then encouraging those who tried (and failed) to use said coupons to complain to the vendor, rather than Honey themselves.
I mean, if you think about it, who would you rather trust? The people trying to "save you money" or the people who are trying to make a sale? Your instincts are going to go with the people trying to save you money the majority of the time.
It's insidious. It's vile. It should be illegal if it isn't already.
@@GG4F-tf8ex It's an extension. Anyone who ever punched in a code while shopping, while having the extension? Honey now has that code and can parse it across the entire web. It's no different from an installed application on a smartphone having access to your photos or contacts list - unless the coupon code was set up in such a way to only be redeemable once ever (even big businesses generally don't do this, let alone small ones), it'd be fair game to be stolen.
Magnanimous Intro. Not even the Matrix made dodging look that cool. XD
10:50 I also have to assume a large amount of influencers this actually effected have never had honey, including and especially legal eagle. It's not a gotcha to all the people who never signed the tos.
Exactly what i was thinking. Although i am not sure if there is some sort of terms of service for sponsorships?
10:56 Bro hit the scatman
More like rap god
5:20 he dies
Yes
He Prolly jus ran out of battery
I love coming back to Moist’s videos after a couple weeks and seeing his upgrades background
9:24 damn that keyboard 💀💀💀💀
Finally someone that mentions it 😆
All the people in the class action lawsuit who were harmed by affiliate link stealing unless they also signed up for Honey haven't agreed to the terms of service. So even if it was somehow upheld many wouldn't be bound by it. I don't know if it is illegal to lie but Honey also damaged users of honey by lying and saying they searched the whole web for the best coupon codes. So I hope there is a second class action lawsuit just for that.
I don’t think it’s illegal for them on the user side, but yeah, they are about to get omega fisted on the creator side. Because of how wide they casted the net, theoretically ALL youtubers, tiktokers, streamers or anyone who uses affiliate cookies across the world can jump in and pound them.
While I don’t think Paypal will go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to be a big blow to their company
yess 14:07 excuses him reading all the way through though 😭
This lawsuit is for people who did not partner with Honey. When being sponsored by Honey, creators allowed them to poach affiliates so there’s not much that could be done there. But those who didn’t partner with them got fucked over royally.
1:50 I actually have a theory on what part two is going to be about based on the clips MegaLag played at the end of the part one video. He mentions that there were sometimes where honey would work flawlessly without any of the shady shit. None of the affiliate link poaching and the discounts were actually phenomenal, like 30-50% off coupons. All of the clips at the end of the video seemed to be from business owners who were also being screwed over by Honey.
There was one thing one of the people in the clips mentions. People contacting their support asking about a 60% off discount that wasnt working. It was what he said that made me think this. He said, "That is not your discount... how did you get that?"
Most of us only experience the world of Business to Consumer transactions (BtC), however, there is also Business to Business transactions (BtB). An example of a BtB transaction can be in the form of say a retail store buying products from a manufacturer to then sell to consumers. There is the Manufacturing Business and the Retail Business. These businesses have a shared interest in working together because they form a chain where the retail business makes money from selling the products that it buys from the manufacturer. Often, businesses like these will strike "deals" with each other. The manufacturer might give the retail business a private discount to be used between their BtB transactions only in exchange that retail business will stock and try to sell more of the manufacturers products specifically than other ones. These discounts can get quite large. in the range of 30-60% like mentioned at the end of MegaLag's video. Stuff like this happens all the time between businesses. Retailers and Manufacturers is just one example.
What I think, Honey somehow managed to get access to these discounts that are typically only shared between business and started sharing them with their users. and because of their affiliate poaching, Honey was making money off of these sales while losing money for the "manufacturers" As well as any other businesses Honey could have gotten similar discounts from.
This comment should be higher
ok nobody’s reading that
makes me wonder how many people lost a sponsorship from their audience "not purchasing" from an affiliate link
11:09 damn, didn't know he could do that
4:30 oh nah honey took it to far now they messing with gram gram oh hell nah that’s it
Charlie had to calm the monster inside 4:50
Tl;dr for what he just said in the last moments of the video:
You cannot sue honey, but Honey can sue you.
This honey situation is wild
😮
😮
😮
😮
The way you’re describing honey makes it sound like a back door program a hacker would use to access all your computer files without you knowing about it.
"Don’t get stung by fake deals-this Honey might just be a little too sticky for your wallet!"
- A wise man
The display case in the background is awesome can't wait ti see it complete
"it is factually a scam... in my opinion"
"This should be a slam dunk case"
Please, for the love of god, do not jinx it. Thank you
So basically, my money went somewhere I didn't want it to.
I've been robbed.
I love how quickly you’ve gone full warhammer