And then there were nineteen. That’s how many lawsuits have been filed, against three coupon browser extensions so far. Most of them make the same arguments – that the defendants stole sales commissions that rightfully belonged to online influencers. But some of the latest lawsuits introduce new legal arguments, including one that not only impacts influencers, but could be of interest to anyone who’s ever used a coupon browser extension to search for online deals.
The newest defendant is Microsoft, whose Microsoft Shopping browser extension is now the target of three new lawsuits. Capital One Shopping is the focus of three cases of its own. And the majority of the lawsuits – thirteen so far – target PayPal-owned Honey, the subject of an online “exposé” last month. That report accused Honey of two things. One, was enticing shoppers to click on its browser extension so Honey could take credit for a sale and override an influencer’s referral. The other was that Honey didn’t actually find you the best available coupons.
The first accusation forms the basis for all of the lawsuits filed so far. The second is mostly mentioned as an annoyance, and not a cause of action in and of itself.
Except in one case.
Among the latest lawsuits against PayPal/Honey is one filed last week by Lyon Fitness, owned by bodybuilder and fitness influencer Patrick Lyons. Like the others, he accuses the company of unfair competition and unjust enrichment, for allegedly hijacking influencers’ referrals and substituting its own.
But he also accuses Honey of false advertising, for misleading users “into believing that by installing and using the Honey browser extension they were getting the best available discounts when in fact, they were not.”
Honey “purportedly helps consumers save money by scouring the internet for all available coupons and discount codes, and then automatically applying them,” the lawsuit goes on. But this promise is “false and misleading. Honey does not help consumers find the best discounts and in many situations, Honey provides no discounts at all during the check-out process.”
Several more of the most recent lawsuits make similar points. “Honey’s claims to find the best coupons and rebates available are false,” a lawsuit filed by Brevard Marketing claims. “The Honey Browser Extension is of dubious value to consumers,” influencer Jose Moran claims in his own lawsuit. Even if valid coupons are available and accessible via an online search, “in many if not most cases where a consumer clicks the Honey pop-up, Honey provides no coupon or deal information to the consumer, or the coupon or code is invalid or expired.”
But only Lyons’ lawsuit seeks to hold PayPal legally accountable for representing that Honey searches for and applies the best available coupon discounts. In fact, as several of the lawsuits point out, the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division once challenged Honey’s claim that “with just a single click, Honey will find every working code on the internet and apply the best one to your cart.” Honey “agreed to permanently discontinue the challenged claims,” the NAD said after concluding its investigation in 2020.
And yet Honey’s homepage still says “We’ll find every working promo code online,” even though the fine print in its terms and conditions explains that “While we try and find you the best available discounts and coupons, and to identify low prices, we may not always find you the best deal.”
The false advertising accusation is just one of the novel claims being made against the various defendants in these otherwise similar cases. Others include invasion of privacy, in a case filed against PayPal by influencers Edgar Oganesyan and Matthew Ely. They claim Honey improperly intercepts communications between influencer referrers and online merchants in order to “learn the content of and manipulate those communications” to their advantage. A separate lawsuit filed by influencers Karin Bauer, Angela Sturges and Christie Shinn accuses PayPal of violating California’s Business and Professions Code, which prohibits the “secret payment… or secretly extending to certain purchasers special services or privileges not extending to all… to the injury of a competitor.”
And in the two cases against Microsoft, the “ethical shopping” app Boycat, and influencer Jesika Brodiski, each accuse the company of unfair competition, since the Microsoft Shopping browser extension comes pre-loaded on Microsoft’s Edge browser. “This seamless functionality gives Microsoft a competitive edge,” the lawsuits claim, “allowing it to reach consumers who are less tech savvy and may be wholly unfamiliar with the concept of browser extensions.”
But going back to that false advertising claim – while the Lyons lawsuit is the only one so far to accuse any of the browser extensions of failing to search for the best available coupons as promised, he’s not making that argument on behalf of actual shoppers. His point is that by allegedly falsely advertising its capabilities, Honey is enticing people to use it, which benefits Honey and harms influencers. Influencers who claim to have lost sales commissions to Honey make up the proposed class in Lyons’ proposed class action. Actual shoppers do not.
So if you’ve used a coupon browser extension and suspect you may not really be getting the best deals possible, at least one plaintiff is making that argument on your behalf. But if any couponer wants to win a lawsuit that makes that argument – they’ll have to file one themselves, and make it an even twenty.