Key Takeaways from Honey Browser Lawsuit Dismissal
FollowUpdate: An amended complaint was filed January 22, 2026. This complaint is much more robust, including newly discovered information regarding the ways that Honey was allegedly avoiding detection by compliance teams. In addition, it contains allegations that networks had been in communication with Honey about its violations for years and yet the violations persisted. More to come as this new complaint is evaluated.
Original Post:
Many of us in the industry have been anxiously watching the various “last click” lawsuits that were filed late 2024 and early 2025 regarding affiliate marketing powered toolbar extensions. Back in September, Capital One chose to settle a lawsuit with social media creators but denied any liability.
Last week, a judge in California ruled in favor or PayPal in a Honey browser litigation. (Case No. 5:24-cv-09470-BLF) You can read the full opinion here. Although the judge dismissed the case, which was filed as a class action, the plaintiffs can still file an amended complaint, so the case is likely not over. However, there were definitely some interesting points in the decision that demonstrate a better understanding of how the industry operates compared to the Capital One case.
- The class action was made up of “bloggers, podcasters, and other social media influencers” all deemed “Affiliate Marketers.”
- Although the case was dismissed for lack of standing, the Court also addressed several concerns with the actual legal claims alleged as well.
- Just like the Capital One case, the plaintiffs defined “last click attribution” as “navigating from one page to another by activating a hyperlink” and “does not refer to actions that the consumer takes once they have arrived at the Merchant’s website.”
- Although the Capital One case ended in a settlement, the plaintiffs did use a ruling in that case before it was settled as part of their argument (“seeking to analogize this case to a recent decision”).
- Users granted Honey permission to take the actions it took when they downloaded the extension, which would undermine a Computer Fraud claim.
- The contract for commissions existed between the plaintiffs and the merchants, which undermines the unjust enrichment claim as long as the plaintiffs could sue the merchants.
- Plaintiffs did not show that their contracts with the merchants were disrupted, and PayPal owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs.
- “Plaintiffs’ theory at bottom amounts to no more than asking the Court to look at the state of the industry and guess as to how likely it is that PayPal has diverted commissions away from them.” A “Monte Carlo simulation” (statistical probability) was not sufficient.
It’s interesting that the Court differentiated this case so much from the Capital One case, but that can always come down to what the parties actually entered as evidence, what the exact language of the user agreements was, and how good the attorneys were. In addition, that case didn’t make it through the entire judicial process before it was settled.
The language about the contract being between the affiliates and the merchants is something that has been discussed in almost every conversation we have had within the PMA, so it was not surprising to see it up here. The judge almost seemed to be directly saying that the affiliates should be pursuing the merchants rather than other affiliates.
Assuming the plaintiffs do amend their complaint, the case may very well continue. We’ll know more by January 5, when any amended complaint must be filed.
(Reminder: I’m an attorney, but I am not YOUR attorney! This is for reference only and should not be construed as legal advice)
Latest posts by Tricia Meyer (see all)
- PMA Council Spotlight: Coupons and Deals - March 19, 2026
- Webinar Replay: The Consumerization of B2B - March 16, 2026
- Closing the Gap: Using AI to Align Publisher Agreements with Best Practices - March 12, 2026